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

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.

Objective and subjective measurement of sedentary behavior in human adults: A toolkit

OBJECTIVES

Objectives: Human biologists are increasingly interested in measuring and comparing physical activities in different societies. Sedentary behavior, which refers to time spent sitting or lying down while awake, is a large component of daily 24 hours movement patterns in humans and has been linked to poor health outcomes such as risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, independently of physical activity. As such, it is important for researchers, with the aim of measuring human movement patterns, to most effectively use resources available to them to capture sedentary behavior.

METHODS

This toolkit outlines objective (device-based) and subjective (self-report) methods for measuring sedentary behavior in free-living contexts, the benefits and drawbacks to each, as well as novel options for combined use to maximize scientific rigor. Throughout this toolkit, emphasis is placed on considerations for the use of these methods in various field conditions and in varying cultural contexts.

RESULTS

Objective measures such as inclinometers are the gold-standard for measuring total sedentary time but they typically cannot capture contextual information or determine which specific behaviors are taking place. Subjective measures such as questionnaires and 24 hours-recall methods can provide measurements of time spent in specific sedentary behaviors but are subject to measurement error and response bias.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that researchers use the method(s) that suit the research question; inclinometers are recommended for the measurement of total sedentary time, while self-report methods are recommended for measuring time spent in particular contexts of sedentary behavior.

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.

RESULTS

The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.

CONCLUSION

Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105994.

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers).

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults.

METHODS

Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses.

RESULTS

The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

[Physical activity in the German National Cohort (NAKO): use of multiple assessment tools and initial results]

BACKGROUND

Physical activity is a complex behavior that is difficult to measure validly and reliably in large, population-based studies. Data on physical activity are available for the initial 100,000 participants of the German National Cohort.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the baseline physical activity assessment in the cohort and to present initial descriptive results.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Physical activity was assessed using a combination of tools, including two self-administered questionnaires, the Questionnaire on Annual Physical Activity Pattern (QUAP) and the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ); a computer-based 24‑h physical activity recall (cpar24); and 7‑day accelerometry (Actigraph GT3X/+; ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL, USA).

RESULTS

The availability of data varied between assessment instruments (QUAP: n = 16,372; GPAQ: n = 90,900; cpar24: n = 23,989; accelerometry: n = 35,218). Analyses across measurement tools showed that on average, women spent 75 to 216 min/d, and men spent 73 to 224 min/d in moderate or higher intensity total physical activity. Persons aged 20-39 years spent 66 to 200 min/d, and persons aged 40-69 years spent 78 to 244 min/d in moderate or higher intensity total physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial baseline analyses of physical activity in this cohort show the value of using a combination of questionnaires, 24‑h recalls, and a movement sensor. The comprehensive data collection represents a valuable resource for future analyses and will improve our understanding of the association between physical activity and disease prevention.

Do we have to reduce the recall period? Validity of a daily physical activity questionnaire (PAQ24) in young active adults

Background

Combining the strengths of physical activity (PA) diaries and questionnaires may be needed to improve the unsatisfying measurement quality of existing PA questionnaires. This study investigated the construct validity of a short PA questionnaire (Physical Activity Questionnaire for 24 h [PAQ24]) with a recall period of one day.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, participants completed the PAQ24 on seven consecutive days while wearing an accelerometer (GENEActiv). Thereafter, the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) was completed. Spearman correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess construct validity.

Results

Overall, 50 active adults (11 women, mean age = 25.1 ± 2.5) participated. Relative agreements between Total PA of PAQ24 and accelerometer were 0.37 ≤ ρ ≤ 0.72 for each day with satisfying agreement on five out of seven days. Weekly relative agreement for Total PA was moderate (ρ = 0.44). Relative agreements between PAQ24 and GPAQ were ρ = 0.43 for Total PA. Daily and weekly absolute agreements were poor indicated by wide limits of agreement.

Conclusions

In contrast to weekly Total PA, the majority of daily results of the PAQ24 showed satisfying construct validity. A short recall period may improve the measurement quality of PA questionnaires, but measurement errors and the costs of multiple administrations must be considered in future studies.

Use of previous-day recalls of physical activity and sedentary behavior in epidemiologic studies: results from four instruments

BACKGROUND

The last few years have seen renewed interest in use-of-time recalls in epidemiological studies, driven by a focus on the 24-h day [including sleep, sitting, and light physical activity (LPA)] rather than just moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). This paper describes four different computerised use-of-time instruments (ACT24, PAR, MARCA and cpar24) and presents population time-use data from a collective sample of 8286 adults from different population studies conducted in Australia/New Zealand, Germany and the United States.

METHODS

The instruments were developed independently but showed a number of similarities: they were self-administered through the web or used computer-assisted telephone interviews; all captured energy expenditure using variants of the Ainsworth Compendium; each had been validated against criterion measures; and they used a domain structure whereby activities were aggregated under categories such as Personal Care and Work.

RESULTS

Estimates of physical activity level (average daily rate of energy expenditure in METs) ranged from 1.53 to 1.78 in the four studies, strikingly similar to population estimates derived from doubly labelled water. There was broad agreement in the amount of time spent in sleep (7.2-8.6 h), MVPA (1.6-3.1 h), personal care (1.6-2.4 h), and transportation (1.1-1.8 h). There were consistent sex differences, with women spending 28-81% more time on chores, 8-40% more time in LPA, and 3-39% less time in MVPA than men.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were many similarities between instruments, differences in operationalizing definitions of sedentary behaviour and LPA resulted in substantive differences in the amounts of time reported in sedentary and physically active behaviours. Future research should focus on deriving a core set of basic activities and associated energy expenditure estimates, an agreed classificatory hierarchy for the major behavioural and activity domains, and systems to capture relevant social and environmental contexts.