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

Edvard H. Sagelv; Laila A. Hopstock; Jonas Johansson; Bjørge H. Hansen; Soren Brage; Alexander Horsch; Ulf Ekelund; Bente Morseth

doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661

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

Edvard H. Sagelv^*, Laila A. Hopstock, Jonas Johansson, Bjørge H. Hansen, Soren Brage, Alexander Horsch, Ulf Ekelund, Bente Morseth

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

75 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objectives: We 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. Methods: Participants 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. Results: Ranking 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). Conclusion: Ranking 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.

Original language	English
Article number	e000661
Journal	BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine
Volume	6
Issue number	1
Number of pages	7
ISSN	2055-7647
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661
Publication status	Published - 26. Feb 2020

Keywords

accelerometer
epidemiology
medicine
physical activity
sitting time

Documents & Links

10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661Licence: CC BY-NC

Open access versionFinal published version, 340 KBLicence: CC BY-NC

Cite this

Sagelv, E. H., Hopstock, L. A., Johansson, J., Hansen, B. H., Brage, S., Horsch, A., Ekelund, U., & Morseth, B. (2020). Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, 6(1), Article e000661. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661

@article{8efedde384d24e879d3ef8f9778098f5,

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

abstract = "Objectives: We 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. Methods: Participants in a cohort from the Troms{\o} 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. Results: Ranking 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). Conclusion: Ranking 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.",

keywords = "accelerometer, epidemiology, medicine, physical activity, sitting time",

author = "Sagelv, {Edvard H.} and Hopstock, {Laila A.} and Jonas Johansson and Hansen, {Bj{\o}rge H.} and Soren Brage and Alexander Horsch and Ulf Ekelund and Bente Morseth",

year = "2020",

month = feb,

day = "26",

doi = "10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661",

language = "English",

volume = "6",

journal = "BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine",

issn = "2055-7647",

publisher = "BMJ Group",

number = "1",

}

Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults. / Sagelv, Edvard H.; Hopstock, Laila A.; Johansson, Jonas et al.
In: BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 1, e000661, 26.02.2020.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Criterion validity of two physical activity and one sedentary time questionnaire against accelerometry in a large cohort of adults and older adults

AU - Sagelv, Edvard H.

AU - Hopstock, Laila A.

AU - Johansson, Jonas

AU - Hansen, Bjørge H.

AU - Brage, Soren

AU - Horsch, Alexander

AU - Ekelund, Ulf

AU - Morseth, Bente

PY - 2020/2/26

Y1 - 2020/2/26

N2 - Objectives: We 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. Methods: Participants 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. Results: Ranking 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). Conclusion: Ranking 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.

AB - Objectives: We 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. Methods: Participants 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. Results: Ranking 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). Conclusion: Ranking 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.

KW - accelerometer

KW - epidemiology

KW - medicine

KW - physical activity

KW - sitting time

U2 - 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661

DO - 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000661

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32153981

AN - SCOPUS:85081282371

SN - 2055-7647

VL - 6

JO - BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine

JF - BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine

IS - 1

M1 - e000661

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Documents & Links

Fingerprint

Cite this