Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain-and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods. Methods: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity. Results: The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range − 0.01-0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single-and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good. Conclusion: Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. Registration number: CRD42018105994.

Validity and Reliability of International Physical Activity Questionnaires for Adults across EU Countries: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

“…PAQs showed low-to-moderate validity (r w = 0.13 to 0.48) against measures of objectively measured PA and moderate-to-high validity against subjective measures of PA (other PAQs). Our results are comparable with previous reports [ 48 , 80 ] that showed the validity of PAQs to range from 0.1 to 0.50 against objective measures of PA [ 81 ]. However, it should be noted that the criterion validity was validated in only six different national versions for IPAQ (Ireland, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden, Finland and United Kingdom) and four different national versions for GPAQ (Austria, Belgium, Spain and the United Kingdom) across the EU.…”

“…The rather low concurrent validity scores found in our study may be explained by the different recall periods in investigated PAQs. Next, objective measures of PA are less dependent on long-term variation, and can more accurately capture sporadic and intermittent behaviors [ 48 ], which results in a higher validity of measured PA constructs, but a lower criterion validity of PAQs. It was often blurred which dimension of PA a PAQ was supposed to measure, which made assessing concurrent validity sometimes impossible.…”

“…EHIS-PAQ is a domain-specific questionnaire with last 30-days recall, which includes 8 questions, covering three domains of PA (work-related, transport-related and leisure time), and distinguishes between aerobic and muscle-strengthening PA [ 46 ]. Although some reviews and meta-analysis of measurement properties of PAQs have already been published [ 38 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], there is still lack of knowledge addressing this issue on the European population is very multi-national, multi-cultural and multi-lingual.…”

Measurement Characteristics of the Most Common Used International Physical Activity Questionnaires for Adults Across EU-28 in National Language Versions: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

“…The meta-analysis was performed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [31,32]. The present work was registered at the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews, identification code CRD42020138845.…”

“…Therefore, the cultural context and country specific types of PA are very important for interpretation of questions and consequently for the content validity of a PAQ. Although some reviews and meta-analysis of measurement properties of PAQs have already been published [31][32][33][34], there is still lack of knowledge addressing this issue on European population which is very multi-national, multi-cultural and multi-linguistic.…”