Validity and responsiveness of four measures of occupational sitting and standing

Abstract

BackgroundEvidence on the detrimental health effects of prolonged sedentary behavior is accumulating. Interventions need to have a specific focus on sedentary behavior in order to generate clinically meaningful decreases in sedentary time. When evaluating such intervention, the question whether a participant improved or deteriorated their behavior is fundamental and instruments that are able to detect those changes are essential. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the criterion validity against activPAL and responsiveness to change of two activity monitors (ActiGraph and activPAL) and two questionnaires for the assessment of occupational sitting and standing time.Methods42 participants took part in the Stand@Work intervention trial. Six (T0) and two (T1) weeks before they received a sit-stand workstation and three weeks thereafter (T2), participants wore an ActiGraph and an activPAL activity monitor, and completed the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) and the Workforce Sitting Questionnaire (WSQ). The activPAL was used as the criterion validity measure.ResultsThe ActiGraph showed strong validity for occupational sedentary time at T0 and T1 (Spearman rho = 0.77 and 0.69), but its validity dropped substantially after introduction of the sit-stand workstation (rho = 0.19). Correlations between occupational light-intensity activity assessed by the ActiGraph and occupational standing time assessed by the activPAL varied between 0.25–0.63. The occupational sitting validity correlation of the OSPAQ and WSQ varied from 0.35-0.48 and 0.25-0.30, respectively, and between 0.16–0.68 for the OSPAQ for occupational standing time. The intervention-induced changes in occupational sitting and standing time were well detected by the activPAL, OSPAQ and WSQ (sitting only), but not by the ActiGraph, which had the lowest responsiveness to change.ConclusionsThis study suggests that studies aimed at determining differences in occupational sitting and standing time should use activPAL-type inclinometers as a preferred type of objective measure. Simple questionnaires showed sufficient validity and are usable in addition to an objective measure or alone when objective monitoring is not possible. The hip-worn ActiGraph was unable to distinguish between occupational sitting and standing time, when using uniaxial data and traditional cut-points for sedentary time and light-intensity activity.Trial registrationThe study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (No. ACTRN 12612000072819).

A Comparison of Activity Monitor Data from Devices Worn on the Wrist and the Waist in People with Parkinson's Disease

“…Sedentary behavior is categorized as activity at a low intensity (<1.5 metabolic equivalents) in a sitting or lying posture during waking hours . Previous research with office workers found that waist‐worn ActiGraph monitors were poor at distinguishing between occupational sitting and standing time . It is therefore possible that the waist monitor in the present study was overestimating sedentary time by including standing time.…”

“…27 Previous research with office workers found that waist-worn ActiGraph monitors were poor at distinguishing between occupational sitting and standing time. 28 It is therefore possible that the waist monitor in the present study was overestimating sedentary time by including standing time. Further research exploring sedentary behavior in people with PD could consider using a device worn on the thigh, such as the activPAL (PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, UK), which is more likely to accurately detect sitting and lying time.…”

Workplace Stresses and Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…Nurses responded to 4 items including "lifting far from body", "bending work performance", "standing position", "keeping awkward working position" based on a 5 point Likert scale rating from "never not at all = 1" to "the highest extent = 5", and finally total rating classified into 3 ranges as low posture risk, moderate, and high posture risk. The validity of the questionnaire has been assessed before (21). Body posture scale obtained a relative good reliability (0.73).…”

Impact of Activity Monitors on Quantification of Physical Activity - A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

“…Majority of studies used mixed gender population (n=14), 1 study targeted only males and 1 of females. Most of the studies included participants aged between 18-60 years (n=10) [16], [17], [21], [23], [26], [31], [32], [33], [25], [28] while five studies included participants older than 60 years of age [22], [23], [24], [27], [30] For both qualitative and quantitative analysis seven studies usedactivPAL [9], [17], [22], [24], [25], [29], [33] as an assessment measure of PA whereas eight studies used actigraph [9], [16], [17], [21], [22], [25], [27], [29]. Studies also used step watch [21], AMP 331 [30], mobile phone technology [32] CosMed Kb42 [29], IPAQ [23] and LAPAQ [24] respectively Figure 2 shows the risk of bias in terms of percentages in the studies…”

“…In one such trial by Femke van Nassau, 2015 objective approach has been determined by using two different Research Grad Monitors activPAL and ActiGraphthat has shown a strong validity [16]. Similarly, these results have been further acknowledged in other studies determining the validity of activPAL over ActiGraph in identifying the sitting and standing time among different occupational population [17].…”