Validity and reliability of self-reported methods for assessment of 24-h movement behaviours: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Time spent in sleep, sedentary behaviour (SB), and physical activity are exhaustive and mutually exclusive parts of a 24-h day that need to be considered in a combination. The aim of this study was to identify validated self-reported tools for assessment of movement behaviours across the whole 24-h day, and to review their attributes and measurement properties.

METHODS

The databases PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus were searched until September 2023. Inclusion criteria were: (i) published in English language, (ii) per-reviewed paper, (iii) assessment of self-reported time spent in sleep, SB, and physical activity, (iv) evaluation of measurement properties of all estimates across the full 24-h day, and (v) inclusion of adolescents, adults, or older adults. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist.

RESULTS

Our search returned 2064 records. After studies selection, we included 16 articles that reported construct validity and/or test-retest reliability of 12 unique self-reported tools - eight questionnaires, three time-use recalls, and one time-use diary. Most tools enable assessment of time spent in sleep, and domain-specific SB and physical activity, and account that sum of behaviours should be 24 h. Validity (and reliability) correlation coefficients for sleep ranged between 0.22 and 0.69 (0.41 and 0.92), for SB between 0.06 and 0.57 (0.33 and 0.91), for light-intensity physical activity between 0.18 and 0.46 (0.55 and 0.94), and for moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity between 0.38 and 0.56 (0.59 and 0.94). The quality of included studies being mostly fair-to-good.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that only a limited number of validated self-reported tools for assessment of 24-h movement behaviours are currently available. Validity and reliability of most tools are generally adequate to be used in epidemiological studies and population surveillance, while little is known about adequacy for individual level assessments and responsiveness to behavioural change. To further support research, policy, and practice, there is a need to develop new tools that resonate with the emerging 24-h movement paradigm and to evaluate measurement properties by using compositional data analysis.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022330868.

The perceived mental effort of everyday activities in older adults

People's perceptions of the mental effort required for everyday activities may drive variation in the relationships between lifestyles and cognitive ability. We asked n = 259 healthy older adults aged 60 to 70 years (90 males, 169 females) to provide a rating of the Perceived Mental Effort (PME) for each activity instance they recalled over a 48-h period as part of a time-use recall. PME was rated on a 9-point scale from "very, very low" (score of 1) to "very, very high" (score of 9). Across the entire sample, participants rated a total of 196 different activities and 17,433 activity instances. The mean PME for individual activities was 3.50 ± 1.58. PMEs varied significantly by activity domain, with highest ratings being for Work (5.48 ± 1.72) and the lowest for Self-Care (2.89 ± 0.98). In multivariate analyses, PME ratings were higher in males than females (+0.30), PMEs were higher later in the day, increased with task duration, and decreased with age (all p < 0.0001). Time-weighted average individual PMEs across the two days of recall ranged from 1.86 to 6.50, and were 0.3 units higher for males, but unrelated to age. Repeated intra-individual PME ratings for the same activity were very reliable (ICC = 0.995, mean absolute difference = 0.03 ± 0.17). PMEs show promise as a reliable measure of mental effort.

Design and Evaluation of a Computer-Based 24-Hour Physical Activity Recall (cpar24) Instrument

Background

Widespread access to the Internet and an increasing number of Internet users offers the opportunity of using Web-based recalls to collect detailed physical activity data in epidemiologic studies.

Objective

The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the validity and reliability of a computer-based 24-hour physical activity recall (cpar24) instrument with respect to the recalled 24-h period.

Methods

A random sample of 67 German residents aged 22 to 70 years was instructed to wear an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer for 3 days. Accelerometer counts per min were used to classify activities as sedentary (<100 counts per min), light (100-1951 counts per min), and moderate to vigorous (≥1952 counts per min). On day 3, participants were also requested to specify the type, intensity, timing, and context of all activities performed during day 2 using the cpar24. Using metabolic equivalent of task (MET), the cpar24 activities were classified as sedentary (<1.5 MET), light (1.5-2.9 MET), and moderate to vigorous (≥3.0 MET). The cpar24 was administered twice at a 3-h interval. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r) was used as primary measure of concurrent validity and test-retest reliability.

Results

As compared with accelerometry, the cpar24 underestimated light activity by −123 min (median difference, P difference <.001) and overestimated moderate to vigorous activity by 89 min (P difference <.001). By comparison, time spent sedentary assessed by the 2 methods was similar (median difference=+7 min, P difference=.39). There was modest agreement between the cpar24 and accelerometry regarding sedentary (r=.54), light (r=.46), and moderate to vigorous (r=.50) activities. Reliability analyses revealed modest to high intraclass correlation coefficients for sedentary (r=.75), light (r=.65), and moderate to vigorous (r=.92) activities and no statistically significant differences between replicate cpar24 measurements (median difference for sedentary activities=+10 min, for light activities=−5 min, for moderate to vigorous activities=0 min, all P difference ≥.60).

Conclusion

These data show that the cpar24 is a valid and reproducible Web-based measure of physical activity in adults.

Validity of self-report methods for measuring sedentary behaviour in older adults

OBJECTIVE

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with a range of negative health outcomes, but little is known about the validity of self-report methods for measuring SB in older adults. Thus, the aim was to assess the reliability and validity of two instruments for measuring SB in older adults.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

41 community-dwelling older adults (14/27 male/female, 74.5 ± 7.6 years) wore an ActivPAL(3)™ (AP) for 7 consecutive days, then completed (1) a single question (SQ) to assess sitting time on a usual weekday, weekend day and yesterday (i.e. the last day of monitoring), and (2) a computer-delivered 24-h recall (MARCA) for the last two days. Intraclass correlation (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM) were used to assess test-retest reliability; validity was examined using Spearman's correlation, mean bias and limits of agreement, and kappa for classifying tertiles of time in SB, with AP as the reference standard.

RESULTS

For the SQ, the ICC ranged from 0.64 to 0.79, with SEM 1.03-1.42 h/day. ICC for the MARCA ranged from 0.72 to 0.96, with SEM 0.47-1.18 h/day. The SQ showed modest correlation with AP (r = 0.13-0.33), with mean biases of about -3.5 h/day. The MARCA showed moderate correlation with AP (r = 0.49-0.67), with mean biases of about 1.4 h/day. When categorised into tertiles, agreement was significant but fair for the SQ, and moderate for the MARCA.

CONCLUSION

Both measures have acceptable reliability, but the MARCA provides more valid estimates of SB than the SQ, which underestimates SB in this group of older adults.