Validity of the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (PDPAR) in Fifth-Grade Children

Abstract

This study evaluated the validity of the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (PDPAR) self-report instrument in quantifying after-school physical activity behavior in fifth-grade children. Thirty-eight fifth-grade students (mean age, 10.8 ± 0.1; 52.6% female; 26.3% African American) from two urban elementary schools completed the PDPAR after wearing a CSA WAM 7164 accelerometer for a day. The mean within-subject correlation between self-reported MET level and total counts for each 30-min block was 0.57 (95% C.I., 0.51–0.62). Self-reported mean MET level during the after-school period and the number of 30-min blocks with activity rated at ≥ 6 METs were significantly correlated with the CSA outcome variables. Validity coefficients for these variables ranged from 0.35 to 0.43 (p < .05). Correlations between the number of 30-min blocks with activity rated at ≥ 3 METs and the CSA variables were positive but failed to reach statistical significance (r = 0.19–0.23). The PDPAR provides moderately valid estimates of relative participation in vigorous activity and mean MET level in fifth-grade children. Caution should be exercised when using the PDPAR to quantify moderate physical activity in preadolescent children.

Validade e reprodutibilidade dos instrumentos de medida da atividade física do tipo self-report em adolescentes: uma revisão sistemática

“…A análise da reprodutibilidade foi efetuada em 50 instrumentos e da validade em 71. Ou seja, em alguns instrumentos foi analisada apenas a reprodutibilidade (n = 8) 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43 , em outros a validade (n = 29) 16,18,21,25,28,30,31,32,33,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60 .…”

“…Identificaram-se 52 instrumentos diferentes (42 questionários, 6 diários e 4 entrevistas estruturadas), mas apenas 11 haviam sido testados mais de uma vez 16,18,20,21,22,24,25,26,29,30,31,33,35,36,37,39,41,44,46,49,52,54,55,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67 . A maioria destes instrumentos (33/52) 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,32,35,38,40,41,46,47,50,51,53,…”

Dietary intakes assessed by 24-h recalls in peri-urban African adolescents: validity of energy intake compared with estimated energy expenditure

“…Anthropometric measurements were taken at five points (March, September 2004 and Accordingly to Sirard and Pate (2001), the PDPAR questionnaire (Trost et al, 1999) is a widely used reliable and valid method for the assessment of habitual physical activity of children and adolescents and was therefore used in our study to determine the PAL. The PDPAR questionnaire is a self-reported questionnaire, which is vulnerable to recall errors, deliberate misrepresentation, social desirability and other biases.…”

“…The following PAF values proposed by Brooks et al (2004) were assigned to the PAL categories determined from the PDPAR questionnaire (Trost et al, 1999): PAL 1 (low activity) ¼ 1.55, PAL 2 (medium activity) ¼ 1.7 and PAL 3 (high activity) ¼ 2.…”

“…The estimation of EE using published equations to calculate BMR (Henry et al, 1999) and physical activity factors (PAFs; Brooks et al, 2004) derived from simple physical activity questionnaires such as the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (PDPAR; Trost et al, 1999) offers a feasible approach to validate reported EI in populations in resource-poor settings. The use of BMR estimation equations, however, is limited by the fact that equations derived for one population may not be applicable to a target population in a different environment (Tverskaya et al, 1998;Rodriguez et al, 2000).…”