Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorSteene-Johannessen, Jostein
dc.contributor.authorAnderssen, Sigmund A.
dc.contributor.authorvan der Ploeg, Hidde P.
dc.contributor.authorHendriksen, Ingrid
dc.contributor.authorDonnelly, Alan
dc.contributor.authorBrage, Søren
dc.contributor.authorEkelund, Ulf
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-18T10:24:54Z
dc.date.available2016-02-18T10:24:54Z
dc.date.issued2016-02
dc.identifier.citationMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2016, 48, 235–244.nb_NO
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/2379485
dc.description© 2016 The Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.nb_NO
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Assess the agreement between commonly used self-report methods compared with objectively measured physical activity (PA) in defining the prevalence of individuals compliant with PA recommendations. Methods: Time spent in moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA) was measured at two time points in 1713 healthy individuals from nine European countries using individually calibrated combined heart rate and movement sensing. Participants also completed the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ), short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and short European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Physical Activity Questionnaire (EPIC-PAQ). Individuals were categorized as active (e.g., reporting Q150 min of MVPA per week) or inactive, based on the information derived from the different measures. Sensitivity and specificity analyses and Kappa statistics were performed to evaluate the ability of the three PA questionnaires to correctly categorize individuals as active or inactive. Results: Prevalence estimates of being sufficiently active varied significantly (P for all G0.001) between self-report measures (IPAQ 84.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 82.5–85.9], RPAQ 87.6% [95% CI, 85.9–89.1], EPIC-PAQ 39.9% [95% CI, 37.5–42.1] and objective measure 48.5% [95% CI, 41.6–50.9]. All self-report methods showed low or moderate sensitivity (IPAQ 20.0%, RPAQ 18.7%, and EPIC-PAQ 69.8%) to correctly classify inactive people and the agreement between objective and self-reported PA was low (W = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02–0.12], 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06–0.18], and 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13–0.24] for IPAQ, RPAQ, and EPIC-PAQ, respectively). Conclusions: The modest agreement between self-reported and objectively measured PA suggests that population levels of PA derived from self-report should be interpreted cautiously. Implementation of objective measures in large-scale cohort studies and surveillance systems is recommended.nb_NO
dc.language.isoengnb_NO
dc.publisherAmerican College of Sports Medicinenb_NO
dc.subjectphysical activitynb_NO
dc.subjectsensitivitynb_NO
dc.subjectself-reportnb_NO
dc.subjectquestionnairenb_NO
dc.subjectaccelerometrynb_NO
dc.titleAre self-report measures able to define individuals as physically active or inactive?nb_NO
dc.typeJournal articlenb_NO
dc.typePeer reviewednb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Social science: 200nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Social science: 200::Social science in sports: 330nb_NO
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Social science: 200::Social science in sports: 330::Other subjects within physical education: 339nb_NO
dc.source.journalMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercisenb_NO
dc.description.localcodeSeksjon for idrettsmedisinske fag / Department of Sports Medicinenb_NO


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel