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

Autor: David W. Dunstan, Esmée A. Bakker, Dick H. J. Thijssen, Maria T. E. Hopman, Genevieve N. Healy, Thijs M. H. Eijsvogels, Yvonne A. W. Hartman, Nicola D. Hopkins, Lee E. F. Graves
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2020
Předmět:
Adult
Correlation coefficient
Vascular damage Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 16]
MEDLINE
Medicine (miscellaneous)
Validity
Physical Therapy
Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Context (language use)
Review
Medical Records
RC1200
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Surveys and Questionnaires
130 000 Cognitive Neurology & Memory
Statistics
Criterion validity
Humans
030212 general & internal medicine
lcsh:RC620-627
Reliability (statistics)
Measurement
Nutrition and Dietetics
lcsh:Public aspects of medicine
Metabolic Disorders Radboud Institute for Health Sciences [Radboudumc 6]
lcsh:RA1-1270
030229 sport sciences
Sedentary behaviour
Random effects model
Reliability
lcsh:Nutritional diseases. Deficiency diseases
Meta-analysis
Self Report
Sedentary Behavior
Psychology
Self-report
Sitting
Zdroj: International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-31 (2020)
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17, 1, pp. 75
The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17, 75
ISSN: 1479-5868
Popis: 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.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje