Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults

Abstract

ObjectivesWe compared the ability of physical activity and sitting time questionnaires (PAQ) for ranking individuals versus continuous volume calculations (physical activity level (PAL), metabolic equivalents of task (MET), sitting hours) against accelerometry measured physical activity as our criterion.MethodsParticipants in a cohort from the Tromsø Study completed three questionnaires; (1) The Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale (SGPALS) (n=4040); (2) The Physical Activity Frequency, Intensity and Duration (PAFID) questionnaire (n=5902)) calculated as MET-hours·week-1 and (3) The International Physical Activity questionnaire (IPAQ) short-form sitting question (n=4896). We validated the questionnaires against the following accelerometry (Actigraph wGT3X-BT) estimates: vector magnitude counts per minute, steps∙day-1, time (minutes·day-1) in sedentary behaviour, light physical activity, moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) non-bouted and ≥10 min bouted MVPA.ResultsRanking of physical activity according to the SGPALS and quartiles (Q) of MET-hours∙week-1 from the PAFID were both positively associated with accelerometry estimates of physical activity (p<0.001) but correlations with accelerometry estimates were weak (SGPALS (PAL): r=0.11 to 0.26, p<0.001) and weak-to-moderate (PAFID: r=0.39 to 0.44, p<0.01). There was 1 hour of accelerometry measured sedentary time from Q1 to Q4 in the IPAQ sitting question (p<0.001) and also weak correlations (r=0.22, p<0.01).ConclusionRanking of physical activity levels measured with PAQs appears to have higher validity than energy expenditure calculations. Self-reported sedentary time poorly reflects accelerometry measured sedentary time. These two PAQs can be used for ranking individuals into different physical activity categories supporting previous studies using these instruments when assessing associations with health outcomes.

Physical activity and cold pain tolerance in the general population

“…There is also a known discrepancy between self‐reported and accelerometer‐measured amount of PA in general (Skender et al., 2016) and in the Tromsø Study in particular (Sagelv et al., 2020). Known challenges to questionnaire reliability, validity and sensitivity include longer periods of recall, low sensitivity to change in patterns of activity or activity‐related differences in health and large errors of absolute estimates of amount of activity (Lee et al., 2011; Shephard, 2003; Sylvia et al., 2014), with indications of significant overestimation of volume of PA, in particular higher intensities, with self‐report compared to accelerometry (Dyrstad et al., 2014; Hagstromer et al., 2007).…”

“…Although self‐report results showed associations between habitual PA and pain tolerance, we cannot accurately state the inherent PA volume and intensity, and whether there is some other quality to an active lifestyle in our participants that mediates this association. No current measurement tool captures all components inherent to PA: intensity, duration, frequency, volume, domain and context (Sagelv et al., 2020). Rather, methodologies differ with regard to strengths and weaknesses.…”

Criterion validity and reliability of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire – Hungarian short form against the RM42 accelerometer

“…Population level PA monitoring may support public health benefits. Testing the validity of physical activity questionnaires (PAQs) is crucial to inform researchers when presenting the relationship between self-reported PA and health outcomes [ 6 ].…”

Physical activity, self-rated fitness and stress among 55,185 men and women in the Danish Capital Region Health survey 2017

“…Physical activity is assessed by two questions on the time spent in moderate and vigorous physical activity and is categorized according to the recommendations of WHO ( Danquah et al, 2016 ). Both questionnaire-based assessment of physical activity and assessment of fitness by a single-item question has been shown to be useful for ranking individuals in categories of physical activity and level of cardiorespiratory fitness in epidemiological studies ( Sagelv et al, 2020 , Petersen et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The questions have been validated ( Sagelv et al, 2020 , Danquah et al, 2016 , Jensen et al, 2018 ).…”