Limits...
Concurrent and predictive validity of physical activity measurement items commonly used in clinical settings--data from SCAPIS pilot study.

Ekblom Ö, Ekblom-Bak E, Bolam KA, Ekblom B, Schmidt C, Söderberg S, Bergström G, Börjesson M - BMC Public Health (2015)

Bottom Line: Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders.In this mixed sample of adults, both concurrent and predictive validity vaired between items and between measures of the physical activity pattern.However, several of the investigated questions may be useful for assessing risk at a group level, showing better predictive validity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. orjan.ekblom@gih.se.

ABSTRACT

Background: As the understanding of how different aspects of the physical activity (PA) pattern relate to health and disease, proper assessment is increasingly important. In clinical care, self-reports are the most commonly used assessment technique. However, systematic comparisons between questions regarding concurrent or criterion validity are rare, as are measures of predictive validity. The aim of the study was to examine the concurrent (using accelerometry as reference) and predictive validity (for metabolic syndrome) of five PA questions.

Methods: A sample of 948 middle-aged Swedish men and women reported their PA patterns via five different questions and wore an accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for a minimum of 4 days. Concurrent validity was assessed as correlations and ROC-analyses. Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders.

Results: Concurrent validity was low-to-moderate (r <0.35 and ROC AUC <0.7) with large misclassifications regarding time spent sitting/sedentary and in moderate-to vigorous PA. The predictive validity of the questions was good, and one question (PHAS) showed an 80 % decreased odds-ratio of having metabolic syndrome, after taking potential confounders into consideration.

Discussion: In this mixed sample of adults, both concurrent and predictive validity vaired between items and between measures of the physical activity pattern. The PHAS and WALK items are proposed for assessment of adherence to PA recommendations.

Conclusion: Assessing PA patterns using self-report measures results in methodological problems when trying to predict individual risk for the metabolic syndrome, as the concurrent validity generally was low. However, several of the investigated questions may be useful for assessing risk at a group level, showing better predictive validity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Scatterplot for objectively measured (accelerometry) and self-reported time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, minutes per week, from question C). The line of identity is plotted in the figure. Spearman’s rho was 0.14 (p <0.001)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4587776&req=5

Fig2: Scatterplot for objectively measured (accelerometry) and self-reported time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, minutes per week, from question C). The line of identity is plotted in the figure. Spearman’s rho was 0.14 (p <0.001)

Mentions: As indicated visually in Figs. 1 and 2, weak relationships were present, between reported sedentary time and objectively measured time spent being sedentary as well as time spent in MVPA. The median misclassification of time spent sedentary, calculated as self-report minus accelerometry was −185 (5th–95th percentile: −467 to 119) minutes per day. From the self-reports, 10.5 % of the participants reported no sedentary time, while the lowest accelerometer derived average time spent in sedentary activity was 162 min per day. The median misclassification of time spent in MVPA, calculated as self-report minus accelerometry, was −21.1 (5th–95th percentile: −81.1 to 111.1) minutes per day.Fig 1


Concurrent and predictive validity of physical activity measurement items commonly used in clinical settings--data from SCAPIS pilot study.

Ekblom Ö, Ekblom-Bak E, Bolam KA, Ekblom B, Schmidt C, Söderberg S, Bergström G, Börjesson M - BMC Public Health (2015)

Scatterplot for objectively measured (accelerometry) and self-reported time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, minutes per week, from question C). The line of identity is plotted in the figure. Spearman’s rho was 0.14 (p <0.001)
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4587776&req=5

Fig2: Scatterplot for objectively measured (accelerometry) and self-reported time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, minutes per week, from question C). The line of identity is plotted in the figure. Spearman’s rho was 0.14 (p <0.001)
Mentions: As indicated visually in Figs. 1 and 2, weak relationships were present, between reported sedentary time and objectively measured time spent being sedentary as well as time spent in MVPA. The median misclassification of time spent sedentary, calculated as self-report minus accelerometry was −185 (5th–95th percentile: −467 to 119) minutes per day. From the self-reports, 10.5 % of the participants reported no sedentary time, while the lowest accelerometer derived average time spent in sedentary activity was 162 min per day. The median misclassification of time spent in MVPA, calculated as self-report minus accelerometry, was −21.1 (5th–95th percentile: −81.1 to 111.1) minutes per day.Fig 1

Bottom Line: Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders.In this mixed sample of adults, both concurrent and predictive validity vaired between items and between measures of the physical activity pattern.However, several of the investigated questions may be useful for assessing risk at a group level, showing better predictive validity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden. orjan.ekblom@gih.se.

ABSTRACT

Background: As the understanding of how different aspects of the physical activity (PA) pattern relate to health and disease, proper assessment is increasingly important. In clinical care, self-reports are the most commonly used assessment technique. However, systematic comparisons between questions regarding concurrent or criterion validity are rare, as are measures of predictive validity. The aim of the study was to examine the concurrent (using accelerometry as reference) and predictive validity (for metabolic syndrome) of five PA questions.

Methods: A sample of 948 middle-aged Swedish men and women reported their PA patterns via five different questions and wore an accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for a minimum of 4 days. Concurrent validity was assessed as correlations and ROC-analyses. Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders.

Results: Concurrent validity was low-to-moderate (r <0.35 and ROC AUC <0.7) with large misclassifications regarding time spent sitting/sedentary and in moderate-to vigorous PA. The predictive validity of the questions was good, and one question (PHAS) showed an 80 % decreased odds-ratio of having metabolic syndrome, after taking potential confounders into consideration.

Discussion: In this mixed sample of adults, both concurrent and predictive validity vaired between items and between measures of the physical activity pattern. The PHAS and WALK items are proposed for assessment of adherence to PA recommendations.

Conclusion: Assessing PA patterns using self-report measures results in methodological problems when trying to predict individual risk for the metabolic syndrome, as the concurrent validity generally was low. However, several of the investigated questions may be useful for assessing risk at a group level, showing better predictive validity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus