The validity of single item and domain specific sitting time questionnaires in a student population measured under free-living conditions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26481/marble.2014.v2.297Abstract
Sedentary time questionnaires provide a low cost, low participant burden way of assessing sedentary behavior, but their subjectivity is questionable. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of sedentary time questionnaires, both single item and domain specific, in a student population under free living conditions with accelerometry as criterion measure.
It is hypothesised that both sedentary time questionnaires underestimate the sitting time. Twenty healthy subjects (15 male, 5 female) participated in a one-week observational study under free-living conditions. They wore an accelerometer (activPAL) continuously for 7 consecutive days and afterwards filled in a single item (IPAQ) and a domain specific sedentary time questionnaire (dsSTQ) about the same time period. Spearman correlations were used to assess relative validity and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess absolute agreement between questionnaires and accelerometry. Sitting time was significantly underestimated by the IPAQ and insignificantly overestimated by the dsSTQ compared to accelerometry for the full week average sitting times. Correlations between questionnaires and accelerometry were weak to moderate. For both questionnaires there were large individual differences in estimations compared to accelerometry. The correlation between questionnaire and accelerometer determined sitting events lasting 30 minutes or longer was moderate. The dsSTQ is the more accurate measure of the two questionnaires on sitting time on the population level. However, there were large individual differences in estimations, and thus it does not seem to be a valid, reliable measurement tool for sitting time in small populations and in studies were sitting time is an important outcome. For these studies, accelerometry or more preferably direct observation provides a better estimate of sitting time.
References
Kohl 3rd HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, et al. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. The Lancet. //;380(9838):294-305.
Caballero B. The global epidemic of obesity: an overview. Epidemiologic reviews. 2007;29:1-5. PubMed PMID: 17569676.
Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H. Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes care. 2004;27(5):1047-53.
Katzmarzyk PT, Gledhill N, Shephard RJ. The economic burden of physical inactivity in Canada. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale canadienne. 2000 Nov 28;163(11):1435-40. PubMed PMID: 11192648. Pubmed Central PMCID: 80410.
Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus selfreport measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity. 2008;5:56. PubMed PMID: 18990237. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2588639.
Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. British journal of sports medicine. 2003 Jun;37(3):197-206; discussion PubMed PMID: 12782543. Pubmed Central PMCID: 1724653.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical methods in medical research. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60. PubMed PMID: 10501650.
Clemes SA, David BM, Zhao Y, Han X, Brown W. Validity of two self-report measures of sitting time. Journal of physical activity & health. 2012 May;9(4):533-9. PubMed PMID: 21946087.
Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P. The Feasibility of Reducing and Measuring Sedentary Time among Overweight, Non-Exercising Office Workers. Journal of obesity. 2012;2012:282303. PubMed PMID: 22175004. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3228288.
Dyrstad SM, Hansen BH, Holme IM, Anderssen SA. Comparison of self-reported versus accelerometermeasured physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014 Jan;46(1):99-106. PubMed PMID: 23793232.
Wijndaele K, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Godino JG, Lynch BM, Griffin SJ, Westgate K, et al. Reliability and Validity of a Domain-Specific Last-7-Day Sedentary Time Questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014 Jan 30. PubMed PMID: 24492633.
Marshall AL, Miller YD, Burton NW, Brown WJ. Measuring total and domain-specific sitting: a study of reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1094-102. PubMed PMID: 19997030.
Scholes S, Coombs N, Pedisic Z, Mindell JS, Bauman A, Rowlands AV, et al. Age- and sex-specific criterion validity of the health survey for England physical activity and sedentary behavior assessment questionnaire as compared with accelerometry. American journal of epidemiology. 2014 Jun 15;179(12):1493-502. PubMed PMID: 24863551. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4051878.
Lyden K, Kozey-Keadle S, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P. Validity of two wearable monitors to estimate breaks from sedentary time. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(11):2243-52.
Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe WW, Granat MH. The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. British journal of sports medicine. 2006 Dec;40(12):992-7. PubMed PMID: 16980531. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2577473.
Healy GN, Clark BK, Winkler EA, Gardiner PA, Brown WJ, Matthews CE. Measurement of adults’ sedentary time in population-based studies. Am J Prev Med. 2011 Aug;41(2):216-27. PubMed PMID: 21767730. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3179387.
Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, Staudenmayer J, Freedson PS. Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Aug;43(8):1561-7. PubMed PMID: 21233777.
