Responsiveness of Device-Based and Self-Report Measures of Physical Activity to Detect Behavior Change in Men Taking Part in the Football Fans in Training (FFIT) Program

Abstract

The capacity of physical activity (PA) measures to detect changes in PA within interventions is crucial. This is the first study to examine the responsiveness of activPAL3™ and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ; Short Form) in detecting PA change during a 12-week group-based, men-only weight management program—Football Fans in Training (FFIT). Participants wore an activPAL3™ and completed the IPAQ pre- and post-program (n = 30). Relationships between change scores were assessed by Spearman’s correlations. Mean or median changes in PA were measured using paired samples t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Responsiveness to change was assessed utilizing Standardized Response Mean (SRM). Both device-based and self-report measures demonstrated significant changes pre-post intervention, although these changes were not significantly correlated. The SRM values for changes in activPAL3™ metrics were: 0.54 (for MET-mins/day); 0.53 (for step counts/day); and 0.44 (for MVPA/day), indicating a small to medium responsiveness to change. SRM values for changes in IPAQ scores were: 0.59 (for total PA mins/day); 0.54 (for total MET-mins/day); 0.59 (for walking MET-mins/day); 0.38 (for vigorous MET-mins/day); and 0.38 (for moderate MET-mins/day), revealing a small to medium responsiveness to change. These findings reveal that two commonly used device-based and self-report measures demonstrated responsiveness to changes in PA. While inclusion of both device-based and self-report measures is desirable within interventions it is not always feasible. The results from this study support that self-reported measures can detect PA change within behavioral interventions, although may have a tendency to overestimate changes compared with device-based measures on absolute values, but not standardized response values.

Responsiveness of Patient-Reported and Device-based Physical Activity Measures: Secondary Analysis of Four Randomised Trials

“…Because an instrument’s responsiveness varies with contexts, our secondary analysis of four large trials will contribute to the knowledge base regarding the properties of physical activity measures. Another additional strength was the investigation of all variables from the included instruments, as only two previous studies had analyzed specific variables within the IPEQ and IPAQ (14,16). Our findings identify the IPEQ variables that have greater responsiveness within certain contexts.…”

“…However, only one study compared all physical activity variables from both ActiGraph and ActivPAL, which showed small but similar responsiveness across most variables (17). Moreover, these studies were conducted with small sample sizes and participants with a mean age of 45 yr or younger (16)(17)(18).…”

“…A similar study found that the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was less responsive compared with the ActiGraph (15). Three studies have investigated the responsiveness of ActiGraph or ActivPAL (16–18). However, only one study compared all physical activity variables from both ActiGraph and ActivPAL, which showed small but similar responsiveness across most variables (17).…”

Primary Care and Physical Literacy: A Non-Randomized Controlled Pilot Study to Combat the High Prevalence of Physically Inactive Adults in Austria

“…In fact, this approach poses problems in terms of interpreting one's physical literacy. Moreover, the IPAQ was used as a self-reported measurement of the participants' physical activity behavior, which may overestimate the observed changes regarding this domain following the intervention [77]. Lastly, IG participants were allowed to attend either the strength-based, the multimodal-based, or both sessions on one intervention day.…”