Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Comparison of psychometric properties between recall methods of interview-based physical activity questionnaires: a systematic review

BMC Medical Research Methodology201919:43

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0684-1

  • Received: 8 October 2018
  • Accepted: 14 February 2019
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

This systematic review examined the methodological quality of studies and assessed the psychometric qualities of interview-administered Past-week and Usual-week Physical Activity Questionnaires (PAQs). Pubmed and Embase were used to retrieve data sources.

Methods

The studies were selected using the following eligibility criteria: 1) psychometric properties of PAQs were assessed in adults; 2) the PAQs either consisted of recall periods of usual 7-days (Usual-week PAQs) within the past 12 months or during the past 7-days (Past-week PAQs); and 3) PAQs were interview-administered. The COSMIN taxonomy was utilised to critically appraise study quality and a previously established psychometric criteria employed to evaluate the overall psychometric qualities.

Results

Following screening, 42 studies were examined to determine the psychometric properties of 20 PAQs, with the majority of studies demonstrating good to excellent ratings for methodological quality. For convergent validity (i.e., the relationship between PAQs and other measures), similar overall associations were found between Past-week PAQs and Usual-week PAQs. However, PAQs were more strongly associated with direct measures of physical activity (e.g., accelerometer) than indirect measures of physical activity (i.e., physical fitness), irrespective of recall methods. Very few psychometric properties were examined for each PAQ, with the majority exhibiting poor ratings in psychometric quality. Only a few interview-administered PAQs exhibited positive ratings for a single psychometric property, although the other properties were either rated as poor or questionable, demonstrating the limitations of current PAQs.

Conclusion

Accordingly, further research is necessary to explore a greater number of psychometric properties, or to develop new PAQs by addressing the psychometric limitations identified in the current review.

Keywords

  • Recall methods
  • Validity
  • Reliability
  • Direct measures
  • Indirect measures
  • COSMIN

Background

The prevalence and severity of obesity is continually increasing in most of the Western world, developing into epidemic proportions worldwide [1]. Lack of physical activity reduces physical fitness, and is a major contributor to this global health crisis and is associated with development of chronic diseases and cancer, leading to increased mortality [2]. In contrast, participation in physical activity has been associated with improved health outcomes, lower incidences of health problems and reduced mortality rates [35]. International guidelines developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommend that children and adults to engage in 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity each day [6, 7]. To assess whether physical activity is being performed at these recommended levels, adequate monitoring of patient’s lifestyles and behaviours is needed [8]. This enables health professionals to establish disease risks and develop interventions to address physical inactivity.

Questionnaires are typically used to assess physical activity level, as: 1) they are cost-effective and practical; 2) a large amount of information is collectable in a relatively short period of time; and 3) the results are easily quantifiable [9]. However, a number of disadvantages have been proposed, such as: 1) results are influenced by subjective measures; 2) misinterpretation of questions and recall bias due to language/cultural barriers or cognitive impairment; and 3) questionnaires not specifically developed for people with certain physiological/chronic conditions. Nonetheless, physical activity questionnaires are currently the most widely-used and acceptable forms of obtaining information on physical activity characteristics, particularly for larger-scale observational studies and research interventions [9]. There are several types of physical activity questionnaires which are primarily categorised according to recall periods. The two main recall methods currently utilised, measures recent physical activity performed over the past 7 days (i.e., Past-week PAQs) and the average week physical activity performed within the past 1–12 months (i.e., Usual-week PAQs) [10]. Previous research suggested that Past-week PAQs more accurately reflect the actual physical activity characteristics undertaken that week; however, Usual-week PAQs may minimise week-to-week variability [10], seasonal differences [11] and lifestyle factors, such as pregnancy [12]. Accordingly, the two recall methods may have distinct psychometric characteristics. It is therefore important to establish the validity and reliability of both types of PAQs, to ensure the PAQs selected are fit for purpose.

The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) checklist is a critical appraisal tool which evaluates methodological quality of studies that examine the psychometric properties of health related measures [13]. When combined with quality criteria for psychometric properties [14, 15], it provides a contemporary framework to assess overall psychometric quality of PAQs. According to a recent systematic review using the COSMIN checklist [16], when convergent validity was assessed by comparing PAQs with other measures (e.g., accelerometer or other PAQs), Past-week PAQs had higher correlations than Usual-week PAQs. These findings demonstrated that Past-week PAQs may assist clinicians in accessing the same constructs as those of other measures with better precision of PA level recordings. However, Doma and colleagues [16] only reported on studies that examined the psychometric properties of PAQs that were self-administered and excluded studies that administered PAQs via interviews. Whilst the ability to compare these data from self-administered PAQs to interview-administered PAQs are limited, it is currently the best available evidence of a similar construct.

The majority of PAQs can be either self-administered or interview-administered via face-to-face or telephone conducted by trained interviewers. For example, Active Australia Survey (AAS) is a commonly administered PAQ which assesses past-week PA level; its psychometric properties have previously been evaluated via both self-administration [17] and interview-administration [18]. The advantages of self-administered PAQs are that it is cost-effective, particularly when the PAQs distributed via postal mail or online, and minimises interviewer bias [19]. However, self-administered PAQs also risk introducing respondent bias, especially if respondents have literacy and numeracy difficulties [20]. These limitations can be overcome with interview-administered PAQs, although interviewees may overestimate reporting of their PA level due to social desirability [21]. In addition, the interviewee may over- or under-report physical activity level if instructions given by interviewers are not well standardised, or if interviewers are selective with phrasing the PAQs [22].

Although there is evidence that the mode of questionnaire administration may influence the accuracy and quality of the responses [20], to date, systematic reviews have only reported on the psychometric properties of self-administered PAQs [16, 23, 24], with overall findings indicating that only a few self-reported PAQs had reasonable reliability and validity ratings. No systematic reviews have explored the literature to determine the psychometric properties of interview-administered PAQs, particularly when compared between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs.

Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the methodological quality of studies that have investigated the psychometric properties of interview-administered Past-week and Usual-week PAQs and to determine the overall psychometric quality for each PAQ. The results of this review will aid practitioners and researchers in selecting interview-administered PAQs that are appropriate for their purposes and through identifying the effects of recall differences on psychometric soundness.

Methods

The current systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [25]. The PRISMA statement is a checklist that consists of 27 items that are used to ensure transparency of reporting for systematic reviews.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Studies on the psychometric properties of PAQs were only considered eligible if: 1) published in English; 2) physical activity questionnaires were developed in English; 3) administered to adults (>18yo) in English-speaking countries either with, or without pathological conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disease, metabolic disease or respiratory disease); 4) questionnaires consisted of recall methods of the past-week (i.e., previous 7 days) and usual-week (i.e., previous 7 days over 1–12 months); 5) questionnaires classified physical activity level based on energy expenditure, step count, distance travelled or duration of physical activity with the corresponding metabolic equivalent of task (MET); and 6) if the questionnaires were administered by trained interviewers. Studies were excluded if: 1) published as abstracts, 2) conference proceedings or dissertations; 3) used questionnaires with recall methods of less than 7 days, or recall over the previous 1–12 months that do not report average physical activity level over a 7-day period (i.e., average physical activity over the past month would be excluded whilst average 7-day physical activity over the past month would be included); 4) conducted using paediatric population or those with known cognitive impairment; 5) used questionnaires were translated into a language other than English; and 6) if the questionnaires were administered to individuals from non-English speaking backgrounds as cross-cultural validation was beyond the scope of this systematic review.

Information sources

A systematic literature search was conducted by two authors in June 2017 using two electronic databases (Embase and Pubmed). Subject headings and free text were used as part of the search for both databases, with date restrictions of the past half year applied for the free text search (refer to Table 1 for all search terms used during each electronic search). Following elimination of duplicates, a total of 7191 abstracts were retrieved from the search. The search process summary in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines is depicted in Fig. 1.
Table 1

Search terms and databases used to obtain abstracts

Initial search: Assessment retrieval

Database and Search Terms

Limitations

Subject Headings

Embase: (Questionnaire/) AND (Physical capacity/ OR “physical constitution and health”/ OR “movement (physiology)”/ OR “physical activity, capacity and performance”/ OR Exercise/ OR Performance/ OR Motor performance/) AND (Validation study/ OR validity/ OR Psychometry/ OR Reliability/ OR Measurement accuracy/ OR measurement error/ OR measurement precision/ OR measurement repeatability/)

Humans; English; Adult: 18 to 64 years OR Aged: 65+ years

PubMed: (“Physical Conditioning, Human”[Mesh] OR “Physical Fitness”[Mesh] OR “Physical Therapy Modalities”[Mesh] OR “Physical Endurance”[Mesh] OR “Physical Exertion”[Mesh] OR “Exercise”[Mesh] OR “Motor Activity”[Mesh] OR “Exercise”[Mesh] OR “Exercise Movement Techniques”[Mesh] OR “Exercise Therapy”[Mesh] OR “Psychomotor Performance”[Mesh] OR “Motor Skills”[Mesh] OR “Motor Activity”[Mesh]) AND (“Surveys and Questionnaires”[Mesh]) AND (“Psychometrics”[Mesh] OR “Reproducibility of Results”[Mesh] OR “Validation Studies as Topic”[Mesh] OR “Bias (Epidemiology)”[Mesh] OR “Observer Variation”[Mesh])

Humans; English; Adult: 19+ years

Free Text Words

Embase: (questionnaire*) AND (physic* OR movement* OR capacit* OR exercise* OR train* OR performance* OR motor) AND (psychometric* OR reliability OR validit* OR reproducibility OR bias)

Publication date from 2017 – current

PubMed: As per Embase Free Text

Publication date from 2016/12/09 to 2017/06/09

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Literature search conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines

Selection process

Two independent reviewers with a health science background initially screened all abstracts against the pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria, with each abstract rated as either meeting (“yes”), potentially meeting (“maybe”) or not meeting (“no”) the inclusion criteria. The reviewers were also trained by the primary author (KD) to ensure transparency of the inclusion criteria prior to abstract screening. Upon completion of abstract selection, a random 40% of abstracts were compared between the two independent reviewers and any disagreement between reviewers were consulted by a third reviewer (KD). Our calculation showed a Weighted Kappa calculation of 0.85 (95%CI: 0.81–0.90) which was considered as excellent for inter-rater reliability [26]. Original articles from selected abstracts classified as either “yes” or “maybe” were accessed for further screening by the two reviewers using the same inclusion/exclusion criteria. The first author provided final decisions if any disparity occurred between the two reviewers during the selection process of original articles.

Assess study methodological quality using COSMIN ratings

The COSMIN taxonomy of measurement properties and definitions for health-related patient-reported outcomes were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies [27] (see Table 2). The COSMIN checklist evaluates the methodological quality of studies on psychometric properties and consists of nine domains: internal consistency, reliability (test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability), measurement error (absolute measures), content validity, structural validity, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness [13]. ‘Interpretability’ is not considered to be a psychometric property; thus, it was excluded from this review. Of the nine domains, ‘responsiveness’ was not evaluated as the questionnaire’s ability to detect changes over time was beyond the scope of this review. Furthermore, ‘cross-cultural validity’ was not assessed, as questionnaires either administered in non-English speaking countries or translated into non-English languages did not meet this review’s inclusion criteria. Finally, whilst accelerometry and double-labelled water technique are considered the ‘gold standard’ of assessing physical activity level, there is a risk of under-reporting certain exercise modes (e.g., swimming or resistance training) [28]. Therefore, comparison of physical activity level reported by PAQs and objective measures (i.e., accelerometer and double-labelled water method) was considered as ‘convergent validity’.
Table 2

Definitions for aspects of domains and measurement properties from the COSMIN checklist by Mokkink et al. [27]

Psychometric property

Domain: Definition

 

Validity: The degree to which an HR-PRO instrument measures the construct(s) it purports to measure

Content validity

The degree to which the content of an HR-PRO instrument is an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured

 Face validitya

The degree to which an HR-PRO instrument indeed looks as though they are an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured

Construct validity

The degree to which the scores of an HR-PRO instrument are consistent with hypotheses based on the assumption that a HR-PRO instrument validly measures the construct to be measured

 Structural validityb

The degree to which the scores of an HR-PRO instrument are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct to be measured

Hypothesis testingb

Item construct validity

Criterion validity

The degree to which the scores of an instrument satisfactorily reflect a “gold standard”

Responsiveness

Responsiveness: the capability of an HR-PRO instrument to detect change in the construct to be measured over time

Interpretabilityc

Interpretability: the extent to which qualitative meaning is reflective of an instrument’s quantitative scores or score change

Reliability: The degree to which the measurement is free from measurement error

Internal consistency

The degree of the interrelatedness among the items

Reliability

The proportion of total variance in the measurements due to “true” differences amongst patients

Measurement error

The systematic and random error of a patient’s score that is not attributed to true changes in the construct to be measured

Notes: a Aspect of content validity.

b Aspect of construct validity under the domain validity

c Interpretability is no considered a psychometric property

Each COSMIN checklist domain consists of between 5 to 18 items which addresses various aspects of study design and statistical methods. Based on a 4-point rating system (i.e., excellent, good, fair and poor, respectively), Terwee and colleagues [13] initially suggested that the overall methodological quality of each domain should mirror the rating of the lowest-rated item (i.e., if four items were rated ‘Good’ and one ‘Poor’, the overall score would be ‘Poor’). However, given that each domain consists of items that assess a variety of methodological qualities, rating the overall methodological quality of a domain solely based on the lowest scoring single item undermines the ability of the checklist to explore subtle differences in psychometric qualities of each questionnaire [29]. Subsequently, a revised scoring method was implemented for this review by reporting the overall methodological quality of each domain as a percentage rating, as per Cordier, Speyer [29]. This revised scoring method has also been utilised successfully in a systematic review that compared Past-week and Usual-week PAQs, with sufficient sensitivity to detect differences between psychometric properties [16]. Specifically, the raw scores of each item were used to calculate a percentage of rating according to the following formula:
$$ Total\ score\ of\ each\ domain=\frac{\left(\mathrm{Total}\ \mathrm{score}\ \mathrm{obtained}-\mathrm{minimum}\ \mathrm{score}\ \mathrm{obtained}\right)}{\left(\mathrm{Highest}\ \mathrm{score}\ \mathrm{possible}-\mathrm{minimum}\ \mathrm{score}\ \mathrm{possible}\right)}\times 100 $$

The final percentage score depicting the overall methodological quality of each domain was then classified as follows: Poor = 0–25.0%, Fair = 25.1–50.0%, Good = 50.1–75.0%, Excellent = 75.1–100.0% [30]. Once the psychometric quality ratings of each paper were completed, ratings from a random 40% of papers were compared between two independent reviewers (KD and LP), resulting in a weighted Kappa of 0.84 (0.62–1.00), indicating excellent agreement.

Quality of the psychometric properties

To account for varying sample sizes of each study when comparing the reliability (i.e., reproducibility) and convergent validity (a form of hypothesis testing that evaluates the correlation between two related measures, for example, physical activity levels measured from the PAQs under investigation and other measures) between PAQs, the weighted mean of correlation coefficient (i.e., r-values) were calculated, using the following formula:
$$ \overline{x}=\frac{\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{w}_i{x}_i}{\sum \limits_{i=1}^n{w}_i} $$

Where w = r-value of the comparison within a study (e.g., PAQ vs. another instrument or PAQ vs. Accelerometer/pedometer) and x = sample size of the comparison.

For the strength of reliability, once the weighted r-values were calculated for each study per PAQ, these measures were then averaged to compare the overall correlation between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs. For the strength of convergent validity, weighted r-values were averaged to compare overall correlations between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs, and between parameters that reported direct measures of PA level (e.g., diaries, other PAQs, accelerometers, pedometers) and indirect measures of PA level (e.g., aerobic fitness, muscular strength). If the sample size between each study was equivalent, then the normal non-weighted r-values were averaged. The strength of correlation was classified according to Cohen’s method, with the following: 0–0.29, 0.3–0.49 and ≥ 0.5 as weak, moderate and strong, respectively [31].

The psychometric quality of each measurement property per PAQ for each study (Table 3) was also classified using the following quality criteria: “positive” (+), “conflicting” (±), “indeterminate” (?), “negative” (−), “not reported” (NR) or “not evaluated” (NE) [15, 30]. Studies that were rated as “poor” based on the COSMIN rating were excluded from further analyses and received “not evaluated” (NE). Finally, an overall quality score of assessments for each psychometric property was calculated based on the levels of evidence by Schellingerhout, Verhagen [14]. These scores were determined by integrating the methodological quality rating of the included studies on psychometric properties using the COSMIN checklist, and the quality criteria for measurement properties of assessment according to Terwee, Bot [15] and Cordier, Chen [30] (see Table 3). Figure 2 depicts a flowchart of the analysis process involved in determining the overall quality score for each assessment.
Table 3

The modified version of the psychometric quality rating set out by (Terwee et al., 2007) and (Cordier et al., [30])

Psychometric property

Score a

Quality Criteria b

Content validity

+

A clear description is provided of the measurement aim, the target population, the concepts that are being measured, and the item selection AND target population and (investigators OR experts) were involved in item selection

?

A clear description of above-mentioned aspects is lacking OR only target population involved OR doubtful design or method

No target population involvement

±

Conflicting results

NR

No information found on target population involvement

NE

Not evaluated

Structural validityc

+

Factors should explain at least 50% of the variance

?

Explained variance not mentioned

Factors explain < 50% of the variance

±

Conflicting results

NR

No information found on structural validity

NE

Not evaluated

Hypothesis testingc

+

Specific hypotheses were formulated AND at least 75% of the results are in accordance with these hypotheses; Convergent validity: correlation

between similar assessments is at a statistically significant level (p < 0.05) and strength of relationship is ≥0.5 which is consistent with the hypothesis; Discriminant validity: uses appropriate statistical analysis (e.g., t-test p < 0.05 or Cohen’s d effect size ≥0.5)

?

Doubtful design or method (e.g., no hypotheses)

Less than 75% of hypotheses were confirmed, despite adequate design and methods; Convergent validity: correlation between similar assessments is not at a statistically significant level (p ≥ 0.05) and strength of relationship is < 0.5 which is inconsistent with hypothesis

±

Conflicting results between studies within the same manual

NR

No information found on hypotheses testing

NE

Not evaluated

Internal consistency

+

Factor analyses performed on adequate sample size (7 * # items and 100) AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) calculated per dimension AND Cronbach’s alpha(s) between 0.70 and 0.95

?

No factor analysis OR doubtful design or method

Cronbach’s alpha(s) < 0.70 or > 0.95, despite adequate design and method

±

Conflicting results

NR

No information found on internal consistency

NE

Not evaluated

Reliability

+

ICC or weighted Kappa 0.70

?

Doubtful design or method (e.g., time interval not mentioned)

ICC or weighted Kappa < 0.70, despite adequate design and method

±

Conflicting results

NR

No information found on reliability

NE

Not evaluated

Measurement errord

+

MIC < SDC OR MIC outside the LOA OR convincing arguments that agreement is acceptable

?

Doubtful design or method OR (MIC not defined AND no convincing arguments that agreement is acceptable)

MIC SDC OR MIC equals or inside LOA, despite adequate design and method

±

Conflicting results

NR

No information found on measurement error

NE

Not evaluated

Notes. aScores: + = positive rating,? = indeterminate rating, — = negative rating, ± = conflicting data, NR = not reported, NE = not evaluated (for study of poor methodological quality according to COSMIN rating, data are excluded from further evaluation

bDoubtful design or method is assigned when a clear description of the design or methods of the study is lacking, sample size smaller than 50 subjects (should be at least 50 in every subgroup analysis), or any important methodological weakness in the design or execution of the study

cHypothesis testing: all correlations should be statistically significant (if not, these hypotheses are not confirmed) AND these correlations should be at least moderate (r > 0.5)

dMeasurement error: MIC minimal important change, SDC smallest detectable change, LOA limits of agreement

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Flow chart of the methodological quality rating based on COSMIN, derivation of the quality of psychometric properties and overall quality score per measurement

Data items and synthesis of results

Domains from the COSMIN checklist and psychometric property qualities were assessed for each included study according to Terwee, Bot [15] and Cordier, Chen [30]. The results were then reported in the following order: 1) the description of the literature search (see Table 1); 2) the characteristics of the interview-based PAQ measures (see Table 4) and studies reporting on the development and validation of the interview-based PAQ measures (see Table 4); 3) the methodological quality according to the COSMIN checklist of each study that have reported on the psychometric properties of PAQs (see Table 6); 4) the comparisons of the average weighted r-values of test-retest reliability and convergent validity between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs (see Table 7); 5) the quality of relevant psychometric properties for each study based on the criteria by Terwee, Bot [15] and Cordier, Chen [30] (Table 8); and 6) the overall quality rating of psychometric properties based on the levels of evidence by Schellingerhout, Verhagen [14] for each PAQ and comparing these results between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs (see Table 9).
Table 4

Characteristics of interview-administered Past-week and Usual-week physical activity questionnaires

Instrument

Purpose of instrument

Published year

Type of administration/Recall method

Number of subscales/forms

Total number of items

Response options

Usual-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 CaMos Usual-week

To assess physical activity among those with susceptibility to osteoporosis

2004

Usual 7-days over 12 months

4

10

Type of occupation:

• Full-time/Part-time/Unemployed/Disabled/Retired

• Mostly sitting/Mostly standing or walking/Usually lift light loads/Usually lift heavy loads

Strenuousness of activity:

• Hours/week

Sitting activities:

• Hours/week

Sleep:

• Hours/day

 IPEQ-WA Usual-week

To assess incidental physical activity among older adults

2010

Usual 7-days over 3 months

10

16

Type of activity:

• Minutes/week

Walking for exercise:

• Times/week

• Minutes/bout

Incidental walking:

• Times/week

• Minutes/bout

House maintenance/gardening:

• Minutes/day

Time on feet indoors:

• Minutes/day

 MAQ Usual-week

To assess physical activity among the general population

1990

Usual 7-days over 12 months

6

9

Type of activity:

• Times/month

• Minutes/bout

Television viewing:

• Hours/day

Confined to bed or chair from injury/illness:

• Weeks/year

Difficulties with activities:

• Yes/no

Types of sports:

• Total years

Walk/cycle to work:

• Min/day

 NHS II Usual 7-days

To assess the health conditions of nurses working at hospitals

1989

Usual 7-days over 12 months

3

16

Daily flights of stairs:

• ≤ 2; 3–4; 5–9; 10–14; ≥ 15

Physical activity per week:

• 0–11+ hours

Sedentary time per week:

• 0–90+ hours

 Phone-FITT Usual-week

To assess physical activity among older adults via phone

2008

Usual 7-days over 1 month

9

16

Type of household activity:

• Hours/week

Type of recreational activity:

• Hours/week

Type of seasonal recreational activity:

• Hours/week

Other physical activity:

• Hours/week

 YPAS Usual 7-days

To assess physical activity among Volder adults

1993

Usual 7-days over 1 month

6

39

Type of activity:

• Hours/week

Vigorousness of activity:

• Frequency /week or /month

Leisurely walk:

• Frequency /week or /month; Duration in minutes

General movement:

• Hours/day

Standing and sitting:

• Hours/day

Seasonal changes:

• Compare current season

Past-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 AAS Past 7-days

Population surveillance of physical activity in Australian adults

2003

Past 7-days

4

8

Walking activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Vigorous yard work:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Vigorous activities other than yard work:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Moderate activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

 AAS (modified)

Population surveillance of physical activity in Australian adults

2013

Past 7-days

4

8

Walking activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Vigorous yard work:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Vigorous activities other than yard work:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Moderate activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

 CAQ-PAI Past 7-days

To measure overall kilocalories expended in leisure-time physical activity

1978

Past 7-days

3

4

Walking:

• Blocks/day

Stairs:

• Flights/day

Recreational activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/session

 Checklist Questionnaire Past 7-days

Assess the frequency and duration of physical activities performed in the previous 7 days

2012

Past 7-days

10

64

Household activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Yard activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Family activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Community/volunteer/church:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Transportation:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Miscellaneous:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Other time:

Exercise, sports and dancing:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Employment:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

Miscellaneous:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/week

 Global Questionnaire

To assess physical activity among older adults

2001

Past 7-days

5

35

Type of activity:

• Hours/week

Vigorousness of activity:

• Frequency/week or /month

Leisurely walk:

• Frequency/week or /month; Duration in minutes

General movement:

• Hours/day

 IPAQ-LF Past 7-days

As for IPAQ-LF (Telephone)

2002

Past 7-days

As for IPAQ-LF (Telephone)

As for IPAQ-LF (Telephone)

Vigorous activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Moderate activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Light activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Sitting time

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

 IPAQ-SF Past 7-days

As for IPAQ-LF (Telephone version)

2002

Past 7-days

4

7

Vigorous activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Moderate activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Light activities

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Sitting time

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

 NZPAQ-LF

Retrospective diary that assesses all dimensions of physical activity type and level in New Zealand

2008

Past 7-days

5

11

Sport/recreation:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Transport:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Occupation:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Cultural/incidental activities:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Inactivity:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

 NZPAQ-SF

Modified version of IPAQ-SF to assess physical activity level whilst reflecting the culture in New Zealand

2008

Past 7-days

4

7

Walking activities:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Moderate physical activity:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Vigorous physical activity

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day:

Frequency of activity:

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

 PAAQ

To assess physical activity level in line with the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines

2015

Past 7-days

4

12

Walking or cycling to destination

• Yes/No

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Recreational activities, organised activities lasting minimum of 10 min that caused sweat or hard breathing:

• Yes/No

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Activities at work, home or volunteering that caused sweat or hard breathing:

• Yes/No

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

Vigorous exercises that caused breathlessness:

• Yes/No

• Days/week; Hours/week; minutes/day

 PASE Past 7-days

To assess leisure, occupational and household physical activities amongst the elderly

1991

Past 7-days

3

27

Recreational activities:

• Frequency/week; <  1 h, 1–2 h, 2–4 h or > 4 h

Household activities:

• Yes or no; Type of activities

Occupational activities:

• Hours/week; Type of activities

 PWMAQ

To assess leisure physical activities during the past week

2009

Past 7-days

6

9

Type of activity:

• Times/week

• Minutes/bout

Television viewing:

• Hours/day

Confined to bed or chair from injury/illness:

• Minutes/week

Difficulties with activities:

• Yes/no

Types of sports:

• Total years

Walk/cycle to work:

• Min/day

 PAR Past 7-days

To assess sleep and physical activity patterns

1985

Past 7-days

6

15

Occupational activities:

• Yes or No; Frequency/week; Hours/week; Days/week

Moderate, Hard and Very Hard in the Morning:

• Minutes

Moderate, Hard and Very Hard in the Afternoon:

• Minutes

Moderate, Hard and Very Hard in the Evening:

Strength:

• Minutes

Flexibility:

• Minutes

 VAPAQ

Past 7-days

To measures physical activities amongst veterans

2003

Past 7-days

3

6

Walking activities:

• Blocks/day

Sports/recreational activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/session

Occupational activities:

• Frequency/week; Hours/week; minutes/session

CaMos Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, IPEQ-WA Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, MAQ Modified Activity Questionnaire, NHS II Nurses’ Health Study version II, Phone-FITT Phone Fitness, YPAS Yale Physical Activity Survey, AAS Active Australia Survey, CAQ-PAI College Alumni Questionnaire – Physical Activity Index, IPAQ-LF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, IPAQ-SF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, NZPAQ-LF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, NZPAQ-SF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, PAAQ Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire, PASE Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, PWMAQ Past Week Modified Activity Questionnaire, PAR Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire, VAPAQ Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire

Results

Systematic literature search

Following removal of duplicate abstracts, a total of 3447 abstracts were screened according to the inclusion criteria. Upon completion of screening, 75 PAQs and 117 of their corresponding full-text articles were examined for eligibility. Amongst these items, 20 PAQs and 42 of their corresponding articles were included. The remaining 55 PAQs were excluded for the following reasons: non-specified recall periods; recall period was beyond 7 days; recall period was less than 7 days; and various combinations of recall periods.

Included physical activity questionnaires

Table 4 displays the characteristics of the included PAQs, with description of their corresponding studies shown in Table 5. There were 6 PAQs that assessed Usual 7-days of PA level with two PAQs that had a 1-month recall period (Phone FITT and YPAS), one PAQ that had a 3-month recall period (IPEQ-WA) and three PAQs that had a 12-month recall period (CaMos, MAQ and NHS II; Table 4). The remaining 13 PAQs encompassed items that assessed PA level over the Past-7 days. A majority of PAQs had subscales that were separated by the intensity of PA (e.g., light, moderate and vigorous), whereas other PAQs had subscales categorised by the mode of PA (e.g., walking, stairs, occupational and gardening activities).
Table 5

Description of studies for the development and validation of interview-administered Past-week and Usual-week physical activity questionnaires

Instrument

Reference

Purpose of study

Study population

Health condition

Age range (R; mean ± standard deviation)

Usual-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 CaMos

Usual-week

Nadalin, Bentvelsen [45]

To assess test-retest reliability of a portion of the CaMos questionnaire using a combination of administration modes

Reliability (N = 367)

Physical: healthy with possible osteoporosis

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 45–80 (NR)y

 IPEQ-WA

Usual-week

Merom, Delbaere [46]

Assessed construct validity and responsiveness of IPEQ

Male (I) & Female (II): Validity (N = 40 & 86)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Healthy based on cognitive test

Total sample: R = NR; (I) NR; (II) NR

 MAQ

Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [47]

Test-retest reliability and convergent validity of five PAQs commonly used in larger health studies involving middle-aged women

Female (I): Repeatability & Validity (N = 62–66)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 45–65 (52.6 ± 5.4)y

Kriska, Knowler [48]

To examine the reliability and validity of the MAQ

Male (I) & Female (II):

Repeatability (N = 69)

Validity (N = 21)

Physical: No physical limitations with possible type II diabetes mellitus

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 10–59 (NR)yr.; (I) 10–59 NR; (II) 10–59 (NR)y

Kriska, Edelstein [49]

To compare MAQ with other PAQs among individuals with type 2 diabetes

Male: Validity (I) (N = 1043)

Female: Validity (II) (N = 2191)

Physical: No physical limitations with possible type II diabetes mellitus

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (50.6 ± 10.7)yr.; (I) NR; (II) NR

Schulz, Harper [50]

To compare MAQ with direct measures of energy expenditure

Male: Validity (I) (N = 12)

Female: Validity (II) (N = 9)

Physical: No physical limitations with possible type II diabetes mellitus

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR; (I) R = NR (35.4 ± 13.8)yr.; (II) R = NR (31.3 ± 13.0)y

 NHS II

Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [47]

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

 Phone-FITT

Usual-week

Gill, Jones [51]

To develop the Phone-FITT and to evaluate the test–retest reliability and criterion-related (concurrent) and construct (convergent, discriminant and known-groups) validity

Male: Repeatability (I) & Validity (II) (N = 22 & 12)

Female: Repeatability (III) & Validity (IV) (N = 21 & 36)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 73–87 (79.4 ± 2.9)y; (I) 76–86 (79.4 ± 3.2)y; (II) 72–82 (76.5 ± 3.4); (III) 76–86 (79.5 ± 2.7)y; (IV) 71–89 (77.8 ± 5.1)y

 YPAS

Usual-week

Colbert, Matthews [52]

Compared validity of a variety of physical activity measurement tools in older adults

Validity (N = 56)

Physical: Musculoskeletal conditions, lung disease, cancer and hypertension

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = NR (74.7 ± 6.5)y

Dipietro, Caspersen [53]

Preliminary repeatability data and validation results relative to selected physiologic variables

Male (I) & Female (II): Repeatability (N = 20 & 56); Validity (N = 14 & 11)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = NR (71.0 ± 6.6)y; (I) R = NR (70.9 ± 6.2)y; (II) R = NR (69.6 ± 6.0)y

Gennuso, Matthews [54]

Reliability and validity of physical activity surveys for assessing time spent in sedentary behavior in older adults

Validity & Repeatability (N = 58)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 66–88 (75.1 ± 6.5)y

Harada, Chiu [55]

Assess the known-groups and construct validity of CHAMPS, PASE and YPAS

Retirement homes (I) & Community centres (II): Validity (N = 36 & 51)

Physical: Musculoskeletal conditions, lung disease, diabetes and hypertension

Cognitive: Healthy based on cognitive test

Total sample: R = 56–89 (75.0 ± 6.0); (I) R = 65–89 (79.0 ± 6.0); (II) R = 65–86 (73.0 ± 5.0)

Kolbe-Alexander, Lambert [56]

Validity and reliability of the YPAS and the short version of the

IPAQ in older South African adults

Male (I) & Female (II): (N = 52 & 70); Sample (N) not reported between psychometric measures

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 62–69 (66 ± NR)y; (I) 62–69 (67 ± NR); (II) 62–69 (65 ± NR)

Moore, Ellis [57]

Construct validity of four PAQs in culturally diverse older adults

African American (I) & Caucasian (II): Validity (N = 54)

Physical: Musculoskeletal conditions, neurological and cardiorespiratory

Cognitive: Healthy based on cognitive test

Total sample: NR; (I) NR (67.2 ± 9.9)y; (II) NR (66.3 ± 9.8)y

Past-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 AAS

Past-7 days

Brown, Trost [58]

Assessed the test-retest reliability of activity status derived from four physical activity measures

AAS (I), IPAQ (II), BRFSS (III) & NHS (IV): Repeatability (N = 356, 104, 127 & 122)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 18-75y (NR)y; (I), (II), (III) & (IV) 18-75y (NR)y

Brown, Bauman [59]

Compared the level of agreement in prevalence estimates of the proportion of the population that is sufficiently active for health benefit derived from four measures that are in use in Australia and elsewhere around the world

AAS (I), IPAQ (II) & BRFSS (III): Validity (N = 428, 427 & 425)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 18-75y (NR)y; (I), (II) & (III) 18-75y (NR)y

 

Creamer, Bowles [60]

Determining computer-assisted approaches for surveillance of physical activity

Validity & Repeatability (N = 56)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Screened based on capability to read

Total sample: NR (43.1 ± 11.4)y

 AAS (modified)

Past-7 days

Fjeldsoe, Winkler [18]

Determined the test–retest reliability and criterion validity the Adapted Active Australia Survey and whether these properties varied across participants’ activity levels

Validity & Repeatability (N = 63)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Screened based on capability to read

Total sample: NR (49.5 ± 12.5)y

 CAQ-PAI

Past-7 days

Mahabir, Baer [61]

Convergent validity of four physical activity questionnaires with DLW

Validity (N = 65)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 49.2–78.8 (59.9 ± 7.5)y

Rauh, Hovell [62]

Reliability and convergent validity of several PAQs

Validity (N = 45)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 18–55 (33.0 ± 10.6)y

Washburn, Smith [63]

Reliability of the CAQ-PAI

Combined gender (I), Male (II) & Female (III): Repeatability (N = 633, 261 & 372)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

(I) Total sample: 25–65: (39.5 ± 10.8)y; (II) NR (38.2 ± 10.6)y; (III) NR (40.5 ± 10.8)

 Checklist Questionnaire

Past-7 days

Masse, Fulton [64]

Compared the validity of two physical activity questionnaire formats

Validity (N = 260)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: R = 40–70 (49.2 ± 7.0)y

 Global Questionnaire

Past-7 days

Masse, Fulton [64]

As per Checklist Questionnaire

As per Checklist Questionnaire

As per Checklist Questionnaire

As per Checklist Questionnaire

 IPAQ-LF

Past-7 days

Ahn, Chmiel [65]

Validity of IPAQ-SF (telephone) with accelerometer amongst adults with systemic lumpus erythematosus

Validity (N = 118)

Physical: Systemic Lupus

Erythematosus

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (45.4 ± 10.9)y

Garriguet, Tremblay [66]

Validity of IPAQ-LF (self-administered) and the new Physical Activity for Adults Questionnaire (PAAQ) with accelerometers

IPAQ-LF (I) & PAAQ (II): Validity (N = 94 & 108)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Healthy based on cognitive interview

Total sample: 18–79 (NR); (I) NR (47 ± NR)y; (II) NR (47 ± NR)y

 IPAQ-SF

Past-7 days

Ainsworth, Macera [67]

Compared the physical activity prevalence estimates obtained from BRFSS and IPAQ-SF (interview)

Validity (N = 9945)

Physical: Non-institutionalised

Cognitive: Non-institutionalised

Total sample: R = 18–55+ (NR)

Brown, Trost [58]

As for AAS

As for AAS

As for AAS

As for AAS

Brown, Bauman [59]

As for AAS

As for AAS

As for AAS

As for AAS

 NZPAQ-LF

Past-7 days

Moy, Scragg [68]

Convergent validity of NZPAQ-LF with heart-rate monitoring

Male (I) & Female (II): Validity (N = 90 & 96)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 19–86 (48.6 ± 16.4)y; (I) NR (48.4 ± NR)y; (II) NR (48.7 ± NR)y

 NZPAQ-SF

Past-7 days

Moy, Scragg [68]

As per NZPAQ-LF

As per NZPAQ-LF

As per NZPAQ-LF

As per NZPAQ-LF

 PAAQ

Past-7 days

Garriguet, Tremblay [66]

As for IPAQ-LF

As for IPAQ-LF

As for IPAQ-LF

As for IPAQ-LF

 PASE

Past-7 days

Colbert, Matthews [52]

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

Dinger, Oman [69]

Convergent validity and reliability of PASE with accelerometers with elderly individuals

Validity & Repeatability (N = 56)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (75.7 ± 7.9)y

Johansen, Painter [70]

Convergent validity of three physical activity questionnaires with accelerometers in patients with end-stage renal disease

Validity (N = 39)

Physical: Patients undergoing haemodialysis

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (52 ± 16)y

Moore, Ellis [57]

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

As for YPAS

Washburn, Smith [71]

Convergent validity and reliability of PASE with accelerometers

Validity & Repeatability (N = 119)

Physical: Included participants without serious physical impairments

Cognitive: Included participants without serious cognitive impairments, but screening method not clear

Total sample: NR (73.4 ± NR)y

 PWMAQ

Past-7 days

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [72]

Reliability and validity of PWMAQ in middle-aged women

Validity & Repeatability (N = 66)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (52.6 ± 5.4)y

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [47]

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

As for MAQ

 PAR

Past-7 days

Albanes, Conway [73]

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

Blair, Haskell [74]

Construct validity of PAR

Male (I) & Female (II): Validity (N = 1077, 1206)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 16–74 (NR)y

Conway, Seale [75]

Convergent validity of PAR with DLW

Validity (N = 24)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 27–65 (41.2 ± 2.0)y

Garfield, Canavan [76]

As for PASE

As for PASE

As for PASE

As for PASE

Gross, Sallis [77]

Inter-rater reliability of PAR

Inter-rater reliability (N = 21)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 19–52 (NR)y

Irwin, Ainsworth [78]

Convergent validity of PAR with DLW

Validity (N = 24)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 27–65 (41.2 ± 9.6)y

Johansen, Painter [70]

As for PASE

As for PASE

As for PASE

As for PASE

Mahabir, Baer [61]

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

Rauh, Hovell [62]

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

As for CAQ-PAI

Sallis, Haskell [79]

Reliability of PAR

Repeatability (N = 64)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 20–74 (40.1 ± 15.7)y

Sarkin, Johnson [33]

Construct validity of three physical activity questionnaires

Combined gender (I), Male (II) & Female (III): Validity (N = 575, 256 & 319)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened

(I) Total sample: NR (24.5 ± 1.9)y; (II) NR (24.7 ± 2.0)y; (III) NR (24.4 ± 2.1)y

Taylor, Coffey [80]

Convergent validity of PAR with motion sensors

Validity (N = 30)

Physical: Some patients with myocardial infarction several 11–26 weeks prior to study

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 34–69 (52.3 ± NR)

Washburn, Jacobsen [81]

Convergent validity of PAR with DLW

Male (I) & Female (II): Validity (N = 17 & 29)

Physical: No chronic disease conditions

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: 17–35 (23.6 ± 4.2)y; (I) NR (23.9 ± 3.8)y; (II) NR (23.3 ± 4.6)y

Williams, Klesges [82]

Reliability and convergent validity of PAR in college students

Repeatability & Validity (N = 45)

Physical: NR

Cognitive: Not screened, but were all enrolled at a university

Total sample: 18–52 (24.7 ± 7.73)y

 VAPAQ

Past-7 days

Betz, Myers [83]

Reproducibility of VAPAQ in an elderly population

Exercise group (I) & Usual care group (II): Repeatability (N = 26 & 29)y

Physical: All patients had abdominal aortic aneurysm

Cognitive: Not screened

Total sample: NR (73.0 ± 7.9)y; (I) NR; (II) NR

CaMos Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, IPEQ-WA Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, MAQ Modified Activity Questionnaire, NHS II Nurses’ Health Study version II, Phone-FITT Phone Fitness, YPAS Yale Physical Activity Survey, AAS Active Australia Survey, CAQ-PAI College Alumni Questionnaire – Physical Activity Index, IPAQ-LF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, IPAQ-SF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, NZPAQ-LF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, NZPAQ-SF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, PAAQ Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire, PASE Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, PWMAQ Past Week Modified Activity Questionnaire, PAR Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire, VAPAQ Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire

Psychometric properties of PAQs

Table 6 provides an overview of the methodological quality assessment of studies reporting on psychometric properties of usual-week and past-week physical activity questionnaires using the COSMIN checklist. The most frequently reported psychometric properties based on the COSMIN rating assessment was hypothesis testing (18 of 20 PAQs), ranging from fair to excellent qualities, followed by reliability (13 of 20 PAQs), ranging from good to excellent qualities. The least reported psychometric properties included measurement error (4 of 20 PAQs), ranging from good to excellent qualities, internal consistency (3 of 20 PAQs), ranging from poor to fair qualities and content validity (3 of 20 PAQs), ranging from fair to good qualities. No studies were identified that reported structural validity. When different PAQ recall methods were compared (i.e., Past-week PAQ versus Usual-week PAQ), similar frequencies in psychometric properties were found for Usual 7-day PAQs and Past 7-day PAQs with internal consistency (16.7 and 14.3%, respectively) and content validity (16.7 and 14.3%, respectively). However, notable differences were also shown with Usual 7-day PAQs more frequently reported for reliability (83.3% vs. 57.1%) and Past 7-day PAQs more frequently for measurement error (24.1% vs. 16.7%) and hypothesis testing (92.9% vs. 83.3%).
Table 6

Overview of the methodological quality assessment of studies reporting on psychometric properties of interview-administered Usual-week and Past-week physical activity questionnaires using the COSMIN checklist

Instrument

Study

Measurement properties

Internal consistency

Reliability

Measurement error

Content validity

Structural validity

Hypothesis testingab

Type: Score

Usual-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 CaMos

Usual-week

Nadalin, Bentvelsen [36]

NR

78.1% (Excellent)c

NR

NR

NR

NR

 IPEQ

Usual-week

Merom, Delbaere [37]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 68.7% (Good)

Indirect: 43.5% (Fair)

 MAQ

Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

71.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Indirect: 59.1% (Good)

Kriska, Knowler [39]

NR

62.1% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 43.5% (Fair)

Kriska, Edelstein [40]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 78.3% (Excellent)

Schulz, Harper [41]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 34.8% (Fair)

 NHS II

Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

71.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Indirect: 59.1% (Good)

 Phone-FITT

Usual-week

Gill, Jones [32]

NR

62.1% (Good)c

NR

28.5% (Fair)

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Indirect: 68.1% (Good)

 YPAS

Usual-week

Colbert, Matthews [42]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

75.9% (Excellent)

NR

NR

Direct: 82.4% (Excellent)

Dipietro, Caspersen [43]

21.7% (Poor)

82.8% (Excellent)

65.5% (Good)

NR

NR

Direct: 56.5% (Good)

Gennuso, Matthews [44]

NR

71.9% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

Harada, Chiu [45]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 68.1% (Good)

Indirect: 75.5% (Excellent)

Kolbe-Alexander, Lambert [46]

NR

56.3% (Good)c

58.6% (Good)

NR

NR

Direct: 67.4% (Good)

Moore, Ellis [47]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 73.9% (Good)

Past-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 AAS

Past-7 days

Brown, Bauman [49]

NR

78.1% (Excellent)c

NR

NR

NR

NR

Brown, Trost [48]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

Creamer, Bowles [50]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 82.6% (Excellent)

 AAS (modified)

Past-7 days

Fjeldsoe, Winkler [12]

NR

72.2% (Good)c

72.4% (Good)

NR

NR

Direct: 78.3% (Excellent)

 CAQ-PAI

Past-7 days

Mahabir, Baer [51]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 54.3% (Good)

Rauh, Hovell [52]

NR

65.5% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

Indirect: 60.9% (Good)

Washburn, Smith [53]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 65.2% (Good)

 Checklist Questionnaire

Past-7 days

Masse, Fulton [54]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

 Global Questionnaire

Past-7 days

Masse, Fulton [54]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

 IPAQ-LF

Past-7 days

Ahn, Chmiel [55]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 78.3% (Excellent)

Garriguet, Tremblay [56]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

 IPAQ-SF

Past-7 days

Ainsworth, Macera [57]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 78.2% (Excellent)

Brown, Bauman [49]

NR

78.1% (Excellent)c

NR

NR

NR

NR

Brown, Trost [48]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

 NZPAQ-LF

Past-7 days

Moy, Scragg [58]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 82.6% (Excellent)

 NZPAQ-SF

Past-7 days

Moy, Scragg [58]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 82.6% (Excellent)

 PAAQ

Past-7 days

Garriguet, Tremblay [56]

NR

NR

NR

57.1% (Good)

NR

Direct: 78.3% (Excellent)

 PASE

Past-7 days

Colbert, Matthews [42]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

75.9% (Excellent)

NR

NR

Direct: 82.4% (Excellent)

Dinger, Oman [59]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 82.6% (Excellent)

Johansen, Painter [60]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Indirect: 43.5% (Fair)

Moore, Ellis [47]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 73.9% (Good)

Washburn, Smith [61]

43.5% (Fair)

82.8% (Excellent)c

NR

71.4% (Good)

NR

Indirect: 68.8% (Good)

 PWMAQ

Past-7 days

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [62]

NR

72.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

71.4% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Indirect: 59.1% (Good)

 PAR

Past-7 days

Albanes, Conway [63]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 30.4% (Fair)

Blair, Haskell [64]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 78.3% (Excellent)

Indirect: 78.3% (Excellent)

Conway, Seale [65]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 69.6% (Good)

Garfield, Canavan [66]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 56.5% (Good)

Gross, Sallis [67]

NR

58.6% (Good)d

NR

NR

NR

NR

Irwin, Ainsworth [68]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 52.2% (Good)

Indirect: 52.2% (Good)

Johansen, Painter [60]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 65.2% (Good)

Indirect) 56.5% (Good)

Mahabir, Baer [51]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 65.2% (Good)

Rauh, Hovell [52]

NR

65.5% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

Indirect: 60.9% (Good)

Sallis, Haskell [69]

36.4% (Fair)

79.3% (Excellent)c

NR

NR

NR

Indirect: 73.9% (Good)

Sarkin, Johnson [70]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Divergent: 34.8% (Fair)

Taylor, Coffey [71]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 56.5% (Good)

Indirect: 56.5% (Good)

Washburn, Jacobsen [72]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 65.2% (Good)

Williams, Klesges [73]

NR

55.2% (Good)c

NR

NR

NR

Direct: 60.9% (Good)

 VAPAQ

Past-7 days

Betz, Myers [74]

NR

58.6% (Good)c

62.1% (Good)

NR

NR

NR

aDirect comparisons of physical activity measures (e.g. physical activity level between PAQ and other PAQs, diaries or objective measures)

bIndirect comparisons of physical activity measures (e.g. physical activity level between PAQ and physical fitness, given the assumption that individuals with greater level of physical activity would have a greater level of physical fitness)

cTest-retest reliability

dInter-rater reliability

Table 7 demonstrates the weighted mean of the r-values for test-retest reliability and convergent validity between the types of PAQ (i.e., Usual-week vs. Past-week) and type of comparator measures (i.e., direct vs. indirect measures). Test-retest reliability data was available for 7 of the 20 PAQs. According to the average weighted mean of the r-values, the reliability of both Usual-week and Past-week PAQs showed strong correlations when assessed across two separate time points, with similar reliability measures for Usual-week (r = 0.63) and Past-week (r = 0.56) PAQs. According to Cohen’s methods, when direct and indirect measures were combined for convergent validity (data was available for 17 of 20 PAQs), Usual-week PAQs exhibited a moderate correlation (r = 0.30), whereas Past-week PAQs shows a weak correlation (r = 0.28). With respect to measurement type for each recall of PAQ, the convergent validity for direct measures had moderate correlations for both Usual-week (r = 0.33) and Past-week PAQs (r = 0.40) compared to weak correlations for indirect measures (r = 0.28 and r = 0.19, respectively). When Usual-week and Past-week PAQs were compared separately between direct and indirect measures, similar correlations were observed for the Past-week PAQs (r = 0.40) and the Usual-week PAQs (r = 0.33) for direct measures with moderate correlations. However, for indirect measures, there was a moderate correlation (r = 0.33) for Usual-week PAQs whereas the Past-week PAQs had a weak correlation (r = 0.19). Finally, when both Past-week and Usual-week PAQs were combined, direct measures had a moderate correlation (r = 0.39) whereas indirect measures had a weak correlation (r = 0.21).
Table 7

The weighted mean of the r-values for reliability testing and convergent validity of Past-week and Usual-week physical activity questionnaires

Instrument

r-values

Sample (n)

Reliability testing

 CaMos Usual-week

NR

NR

 IPEQ-WA Usual-week

NR

NR

 MAQ Usual-week

0.91

46

 NHS II Usual 7-days

NR

NR

 Phone-FITT Usual-week

NR

NR

 YPAS Usual 7-days

0.56

198

 AAS Past 7-days

NR

NR

 AAS (modified) Past 7-days

0.65

63

 CAQ-PAI Past 7-days

0.53

633

 Checklist Questionnaire Past 7-days

NR

NR

 Global Questionnaire Past 7-days

NR

NR

 IPAQ-LF Past 7-days

NR

NR

 IPAQ-SF Past 7-days

NR

NR

 NZPAQ-LF Past 7-days

NR

NR

 NZPAQ-SF Past 7-days

NR

NR

 PAAQ Past 7-days

NR

NR

 PASE Past 7-days

0.68

144

 PWMAQ Past 7-days

NR

NR

 PAR Past 7-days

0.65

118

 VAPAQ Past 7-days

0.93

55

Average for Usual-week PAQs

0.63

244

Average for Past-week PAQs

0.56

950

Convergent validity testing

  

 CaMos

  

Usual-week

  

 Direct & Indirect

NR

NR

 Direct

  

 Indirect

  

IPEQ-WA

  

Usual-week

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.28

553

  Direct

0.22

177

  Indirect

0.31

376

MAQ

  

Usual-week

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.47

118

  Direct

0.57

118

  Indirect

0.23

66

NHS II

  

Usual 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.27

66

  Direct

0.43

66

  Indirect

0.22

66

Phone-FITT

  

Usual-week

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.36

84

  Direct

0.44

48

  Indirect

0.25

36

YPAS

  

Usual 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.36

2099

  Direct

0.43

824

  Indirect

0.34

1182

AAS

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

NR

NR

  Direct

NR

NR

  Indirect

NR

NR

AAS (modified)

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.57

63

  Direct

0.57

63

  Indirect

NR

NR

CAQ-PAI

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.15

3731

  Direct

0.46

65

 Indirect

0.14

3666

Checklist Questionnaire

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.46

2231

  Direct

0.46

2231

  Indirect

NR

NR

Gobal Questionnaire

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.35

2231

  Direct

0.35

2231

  Indirect

NR

NR

IPAQ-LF

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.23

436

  Direct

0.23

436

  Indirect

NR

NR

IPAQ-SF

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.34

25.2

  Direct

0.34

25.2

  Indirect

NR

NR

NZPAQ-LF

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

NA

NA

  Direct

0.25

186

  Indirect

NR

NR

NZPAQ-SF

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

NR

NR

  Direct

0.25

186

  Indirect

NR

NR

PAAQ

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.41

318

  Direct

0.41

318

  Indirect

NR

NR

PASE

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.31

355

  Direct

0.44

95

  Indirect

0.27

260

PWMAQ

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

0.51

64

  Direct

0.51

64

  Indirect

NR

NR

PAR

  

Past 7-days

  

 Direct & Indirect

0.25

3539

  Direct

0.39

874

  Indirect

0.21

2547

VAPAQ

  

Past 7-days

  

  Direct & Indirect

NR

NR

  Direct

NR

NR

 Indirect

NR

NR

Average for Usual-week PAQs

Direct & Indirect (r = 0.30)

Direct & Indirect (n = 4730)

Direct (r = 0.33)

Direct (n = 2019)

Indirect (r = 0.28)

Indirect (n = 2711)

Average for Past-week PAQs

Direct & Indirect (r = 0.28)

Direct & Indirect (n = 14,147)

Direct (r = 0.40)

Direct (n = 6182)

Indirect (r = 0.19)

Indirect (n = 7965)

Past-week and Usual-week PAQs

Direct (r = 0.39)

Direct (n = 8201)

Indirect (r = 0.21)

Indirect (n = 10,676)

Notes. CaMos Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, IPEQ-WA Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, MAQ Modified Activity Questionnaire, NHS II Nurses’ Health Study version II, Phone-FITT Phone Fitness, YPAS Yale Physical Activity Survey, AAS Active Australia Survey, CAQ-PAI College Alumni Questionnaire – Physical Activity Index, IPAQ-LF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, IPAQ-SF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, NZPAQ-LF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, NZPAQ-SF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, PAAQ Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire, PASE Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, PWMAQ Past Week Modified Activity Questionnaire PAR Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire, VAPAQ Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire

Table 8 displays the quality of psychometric properties of both types of PAQs (i.e., Usual-week and Past-week) according to the criteria established by Terwee, Bot [15] and Cordier, Chen [30]. Table 9 provides the overall summary rating of the psychometric properties for each PAQ based on the levels of evidence by Schellingerhout, Verhagen [14]. According to Table 9, very few psychometric properties were reported (40 out of 120 possible ratings: 33.3%), with the quality of psychometric properties primarily reported for reliability (13/20: 65%) and hypothesis testing (18/20: 90%). Fewer results were identified for internal consistency (2/20: 10%), content validity (3/20: 15%) and measurement error (4/20: 20%), while structural validity was not rated for any of the PAQs. Of all the psychometric properties rated for psychometric quality [32], the results were mainly negative (17/40: 42.5%), consisting of “strong negative” (10/40: 25%), “moderate negative” (5/40: 12.5%) and “limited negative” (2/40: 5%). Several psychometric properties were reported with “conflicting” (13/40: 32.5%), whilst fewer psychometric properties were reported for “indeterminate” (5/40: 12.5%). One psychometric property had a “not evaluated” rating, due to poor COSMIN scoring.
Table 8

Quality of psychometric properties per study based on the criteria by Terwee, Bot [9] and Cordier, Chen [30]

Assessment

Reference

Measurement properties of questionnaires

Reliability

Construct validity

Internal Consistency

Reliability

Measurement error

Content validity

Structural validity

Hypothesis testingab

Usual-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 CaMos Usual-week

Nadalin, Bentvelsen [36]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

 IPEQ Usual-week

Merom, Delbaere [37]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

 MAQ Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Kriska, Knowler [39]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

± (Direct)

Kriska, Edelstein [40]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Schulz, Harper [41]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

 NHS II Usual-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

NR

NR

NR

± (Direct)

- (Indirect)

 Phone-FITT Usual-week

Gill, Jones [32]

NR

+

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

 YPAS Usual-week

Colbert, Matthews [42]

NR

+

?

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Dipietro, Caspersen [43]

NE

?

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Gennuso, Matthews [44]

NR

NR

NR

NR

? (Direct)

Harada, Chiu [45]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Kolbe-Alexander, Lambert [46]

NR

?

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Moore, Ellis [47]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Indirect)

Past-week Physical Activity Questionnaires

 Active Australia Survey Past week

Brown, Bauman [49]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Brown, Trost [48]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Creamer, Bowles [50]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 Active Australia Survey (modified) Past-week

Fjeldsoe, Winkler [12]

NR

?

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

 CAQ-PAI Past-week

Mahabir, Baer [51]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Rauh, Hovell [52]

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Washburn, Smith [53]

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Indirect)

+ (Discriminant)

 Checklist Questionnaire Past-week

Masse, Fulton [54]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

± (Direct)

 Global Questionnaire Past-week

Masse, Fulton [54]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 IPAQ-LF (self-administered) Past-week

Ahn, Chmiel [55]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Garriguet, Tremblay [56]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 IPAQ-SF(interview) Past-week

Ainsworth, Macera [57]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Brown, Bauman [49]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Brown, Trost [48]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 NZPAQ-LF Past-week

Moy, Scragg [58]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 NZPAQ-SF Past-week

Moy, Scragg [58]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 PAAQ Past-week

Garriguet, Tremblay [56]

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

 PASE Past-week

Colbert, Matthews [42]

NR

?

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Dinger, Oman [59]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Johansen, Painter [60]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Moore, Ellis [47]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Indirect)

Washburn, Smith [61]

NR

+

NR

- (Indirect)

 PWMAQ Past-week

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [62]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

Pettee Gabriel, McClain [38]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

 PAR Past-week

Albanes, Conway [63]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Blair, Haskell [64]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Conway, Seale [65]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Garfield, Canavan [66]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

Gross, Sallis [67]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

NR

Irwin, Ainsworth [68]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Indirect)

Johansen, Painter [60]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Mahabir, Baer [51]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

Rauh, Hovell [52]

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Sallis, Haskell [69]

?

NR

NR

NR

- (Indirect)

Sarkin, Johnson [70]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

? (Indirect)

Taylor, Coffey [71]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

+ (Direct)

Washburn, Jacobsen [72]

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

- (Direct)

- (Indirect)

Williams, Klesges [73]

NR

+

NR

NR

NR

± (Direct)

 VAPAQ Past-week

Betz, Myers [74]

NR

+

?

NR

NR

NR

Notes. aDirect comparisons of physical activity measures (e.g., physical activity level between PAQ and other PAQs, diaries or objective measures)

bIndirect comparisons of physical activity measures (e.g., physical activity level between PAQ and physical fitness, given the assumption that individuals with greater level of physical activity would have a greater level of physical fitness)

Table 9

Overall quality score of psychometric properties for each interview-administered Usual-week and Past-week physical activity questionnaire using the levels of evidence by Schellingerhout et al., [14]

Assessment

Internal Consistency

Reliability

Measurement error

Content validity

Structural validity

Hypothesis testing

CaMos Usual-week

NR

Strong Negative

NR

NR

NR

NR

IPEQ Usual-week

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Moderate Negative

MAQ Usual-week

NR

Conflicting

NR

NE

NR

Conflicting

NHS II Usual-week

NR

Moderate Negative

NR

NR

NR

Conflicting

Phone-FITT Usual-week

NR

Moderate Positive

NR

Limited Negative

NR

Moderate Negative

YPAS Usual-week

Not Evaluated

Conflicting

Indeterminate

NR

NR

Conflicting

AAS Past-7 days

NR

Conflicting

NR

NR

NR

Strong Negative

AAS (modified) Past-7 days

NR

Strong Negative

Indeterminate

NR

NR

Strong Positive

CAQ-PAI Past-7 days

NR

Strong Negative

NR

NR

NR

Conflicting

Checklist Questionnaire Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Conflicting

Global Questionnaire Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Moderate Negative

IPAQ-LF (self-administered) Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Strong Negative

IPAQ-SF (interview) Past-7 days

NR

Strong Negative

NR

NR

NR

Strong Negative

NZPAQ-LF Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Strong Negative

NZPAQ-SF Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Strong Negative

PAAQ Past-7 days

NR

NR

NR

Moderate Negative

NR

Strong Negative

PASE Past-7 days

Limited Negative

Conflicting

Indeterminate

Moderate Positive

NR

Conflicting

PWMAQ Past-7 days

NR

Strong Positive

NR

NR

NR

Conflicting

PAR Past-7 days

Indeterminate

Conflicting

NR

NR

NR

Conflicting

VAPAQ Past-7 days

NR

Moderate Positive

Indeterminate

NR

NR

NR

Notes. CaMos Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study, IPEQ-WA Incidental and Planned Exercise Questionnaire, MAQ Modified Activity Questionnaire, NHS II Nurses’ Health Study version II, Phone-FITT Phone Fitness, YPAS Yale Physical Activity Survey, AAS Active Australia Survey, CAQ-PAI – College Alumni Questionnaire – Physical Activity Index; IPAQ-LF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, IPAQ-SF International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, NZPAQ-LF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form, NZPAQ-SF New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form, PAAQ Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire, PASE Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, PWMAQ Past Week Modified Activity Questionnaire, PAR Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire, VAPAQ Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire

The relative number of negative (“strong negative” [6/18: 33.3%] and “moderate negative” [3/18: 16.7%]) and conflicting (8/18: 44.4%) ratings were reported the most for hypothesis testing; only one “strong positive” rating was identified. For reliability, a greater relative number of positive ratings (“strong positive” [1/13: 7.7%] and “moderate positive” [2/13: 15.4%]) were found. However, reliability also exhibited several negative (“strong negative” [4/13: 30.8%] and “moderate negative” [1/13: 7.7%]) and conflicting (5/13: 38.5%) ratings. The relative number of “indeterminate” ratings was greatest for measurement error (4/4: 100%), whilst internal consistency showed only one “indeterminate”, “limited negative” and “not evaluated” ratings (1/3: 33.3%, respectively). There was one “moderate positive” rating (1/3: 33.3%) for content validity, although the rest of the ratings consisted of one “moderate negative” and “limited negative” ratings (1/3: 33.3%, respectively).

When comparing the PAQs, reliability demonstrated positive ratings for Past-Week Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (PWMAQ) (“strong positive”), Phone-FITT (“moderate positive”) and the Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire (VAPAQ) (“moderate positive”). However, the results for PWMAQ also demonstrated a “conflicting” rating in hypothesis testing, Phone-FITT received a “limited negative” and “moderate negative” in content validity and hypothesis testing, respectively, and VAPAQ received an “indeterminate” rating for measurement error. The AAS (modified) demonstrated a “strong positive” rating for hypothesis testing, although this PAQ also received a “strong negative” and “indeterminate” rating for reliability and measurement error, respectively. While PWMAQ, Phone-FITT, VAPAQ and AAS (modified) received mixed results, these measures have a substantial number of psychometric properties that were not reported.

When compared between the types of PAQs, a similar percentage of negative ratings (limited, moderate or strong) were shown for Past-week (12/28: 42.9%) and Usual-week (5/12: 41.7%) PAQs. Conversely, the relative number of positive ratings (limited, moderate or strong) for the Past-week PAQs (4/28: 14.3%) was greater than Usual-week PAQs (1/12: 8.3%), although the absolute number of “positive” ratings were small. The number of NR ratings [33] were noticeable across all PAQs.

Discussion

This systematic review examined the methodological quality of studies that investigated the psychometric properties of interview-administered, Usual-week and Past-week PAQs, in an adult population. There were 20 PAQs with 42 corresponding articles that reported on the psychometric properties of PAQs, of which 6 were Usual-week and 14 were Past-week PAQs. Amongst the psychometric properties, hypothesis testing was reported most frequently, followed by reliability, whereas measurement error, content validity and internal consistency were the least reported. Furthermore, structural validity was not reported in any of the included studies. The methodological quality of the studies exhibited good to excellent ratings across most of the psychometric properties. As per the average weighted mean of the r-values, both Usual-week PAQs and Past-week PAQs showed moderate correlations for reliability and convergent validity for direct measures, whereas convergent validity for indirect measures exhibited weak correlations irrespective of the type of PAQ. When comparing the weighted mean of the r-values between PAQ types, convergent validity for direct measures indicated moderate correlations for both Past-week and Usual-week PAQs, although convergent validity for indirect measures demonstrated moderate correlations for Usual-week PAQs, while weak correlations were observed for Past-week PAQs. According to the level of evidence (i.e., overall quality), most of the psychometric properties exhibited “moderate negative” to “strong negative” ratings irrespective of PAQ types, highlighting concerns for utilising current interview-administered PAQs.

Quality of studies based on the COSMIN taxonomy

Of the psychometric property reliability, most psychometric studies reported on test-retest reliability with good to excellent COSMIN ratings, whereas measurement error was only reported for four measures (YPAS, AAS [modified], PASE and VAPAQ), also with good to excellent ratings. Measurement error is an essential property of the reliability dimension, as it quantifies the magnitude of systematic and random error of PA levels that is not caused by true changes in the construct being measured; thus allowing practitioners to establish meaningful differences in PA measures [34]. Subsequently, more research is warranted to determine the measurement error of PAQs when administered in an interview setting. Compared to test-retest reliability and measurement error, internal consistency was reported for only three measures (YPAS, PASE and PAR) with poor to fair ratings. This discrepancy was due to included studies consisting of a small sample size and/or examining correlations between different items of the same PAQ without conducting Cronbach alpha statistic and factor analyses. According to Terwee et al. [13], both statistical approaches determine whether all items measure the same construct and checks the uni-dimensionality of the scale. Thus, future studies should consider these limitations when examining the internal consistency of interview-administered PAQs.

With the exception of two PAQs (CaMos and VAPAQ), hypothesis testing was reported for all PAQs with the majority of included studies reporting good to excellent ratings for methodological quality. However, studies only investigated three PAQs (Phone-FITT, PAAQ and PASE) for content validity with fair to good COSMIN ratings. The methodological limitations identified from these studies included lack of description on whether piloting was conducted by investigators, expert practitioners and/or the target population. Thus, future studies should consider these issues when examining the content validity of PAQs. Most alarming is that none of the PAQs investigated structural validity. This means that the underlying constructs of all the PAQs are currently unknown, as appropriate statistical analyses to ascertain the factor structure or dimensionality (e.g., dimensionality and principle component analysis using Rasch analysis and exploratory and/or confirmatory factor analysis) of the measures and associated subscales have not been conducted. Therefore, when assessing structural validity of PAQs, future studies should identify whether their approach is in accordance with a formative (i.e., integrative items forming a construct) or reflective (i.e., items are reflective of the same underlying constructs) model.

Quality of psychometric properties

In the current review, test-retest reliability for the Usual-week PAQs was comparable to the Past-week PAQs based on the average weighted mean of the r-values. These results are in contrast to a previous study by Delbaere, Hauer [35], who compared the reliability of self-administered incidental and planned exercise questionnaire (IPEQ) between Usual-week (i.e., past three months) and Past-week versions. According to their results, the Usual-week IPEQ (ICC = 0.84) version showed greater test-retest reliability compared to the Past-week IPEQ version (ICC = 0.77). Authors speculated that PAQs with usual 7-day recall periods during the past several months exhibit better stability in PA measures across time points, compared with PAQs with past-week recalls given that PA levels may fluctuate from week-to-week [10], or season-to-season [11]. The discrepancies in findings between the current review, and the work by Delbaere, Hauer [35], may be due to distinct acceptable cut-off levels being employed for test-retest reliability. For example, Delbaere, Hauer [35] established acceptable ICC values at ≥0.6, whereas the current review utilised an acceptable ICC criteria of ≥0.7 according to the criteria set out by [15]. Therefore, where ICC values (≥0.6 to < 0.7) were classified as “acceptable” for [35], would have been considered below the acceptable cut-off level in the current review with a “negative” rating. In addition, the test-retest reliability in the current review was compared between PAQs with different recall methods based on average weighted mean of the r-values across multiple studies, whereas [35] compared different recall versions of IPEQ within the same study and population. Subsequently, the variation in study design and the type of PAQs may have diluted potential differences in the weighted mean of the r-values between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs in the current review. This is further supported by a previous systematic review by [16], who also reported comparable test-retest reliability of average weighted mean of the r-values for self-administered Usual-week and Past-week PAQs.

When comparing convergent validity (i.e., hypothesis testing) between PAQ recall types, the average weighted mean of the r-values of Past-week PAQs were comparable with Usual-week PAQs for direct measures. However, the average weighted mean of the r-values was greater for Usual-week PAQs compared with Past-week PAQs within our review. These findings differ to a previous systematic review reported by [16] in self-reported PAQs where convergent validity for direct measures were greater for Past-week PAQs than Usual-week PAQs. In addition, the average weighted mean of the r-values for direct measures of convergent validity for both PAQ recall periods showed a moderate correlation (r = 0.35), whereas Doma, Speyer [16] reported weak correlations for the same measures (r = 0.27) based on self-reported PAQs in their previous review. This trend has also been reported by previous studies that compared convergent validity between interview-administered and self-administered PAQs [36, 37]. For example, Chu, Ng [36] reported stronger associations between Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) for the interview-administered method (r = 0.44–0.52) compared with the self-administered method (r = 0.28–0.38) when compared against accelerometers. Collectively, PAQs administered via interview may allow reporting of PA levels with greater accuracy than by self-administration, possibly due to minimisation of respondent bias [36].

While weighted-mean of the r-values for direct measures of convergent validity were comparable between Past-week and Usual-week PAQs, indirect measures of convergent validity were stronger for Usual-week PAQs (i.e., moderate correlations) than Past-week PAQs (i.e., weak correlations). This suggests that Usual-week PAQs better reflect physical fitness (e.g., VO2max, 6-min walk test) and its associated physiological conditions (e.g., BMI, body fat percentage) than Past-week PAQs when administered via interviews. These results are expected, given that physical fitness measures are stable across several weeks despite exercise termination [38], as opposed to the inherent week-to-week fluctuations observed with PA level [39]. Subsequently, when estimating physical fitness levels based on PA level ascertained from PAQs, we encourage the use of Usual-week PAQs rather than Past-week PAQs, particularly when administered via interviews. However, it should be noted that the current review included studies consisting of older adults with a number of pathological conditions (e.g., cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disease and neurological disease), where chronic exercise adaptations and deconditioning may differ in response to apparently healthy, younger individuals [32, 40, 41]. Separating these populations was difficult in the current review as the majority of studies incorporated apparently healthy participants with those who had several pathological conditions in the one study. Thus, future research should systematically compare psychometric properties of PAQs between individuals with pathological conditions and their apparently healthy counterparts.

For the overall Level of Evidence, irrespective of recall methods, there was a substantial number of missing psychometric data (i.e., not reported [NR]), indicating that the psychometric properties pertinent to determining the quality of current PAQs are not being examined effectively. Of the few psychometric properties reported, there were only four that reported “moderate positive” to “strong positive” ratings, with the rest as “strong to limited negative”, “indeterminate” and “conflicting” ratings, which demonstrate the weaknesses of current PAQs. No studies examined structural validity of PAQs, and only three PAQs examined internal consistency with ratings of “not evaluated”, “indeterminate” and “limited negative”. These weak results and lack of reporting is particularly concerning given that both structural validity and internal consistency are based on a reflective model, whereby all items are manifestations of the same underlying construct [27]. In addition, only a very limited number of PAQs reported on content validity (3/20: 15%), with one “positive” rating and two “negative” ratings. These findings further raise the limitations of current interview-administered PAQs, as content validity measures the degree to which the content of a PAQ is an adequate reflection of the construct being measured [27].

When comparing the overall psychometric qualities of PAQs based on Level of Evidence between recall methods, there were minute differences between Usual-week and Past-week PAQs, which are in line with findings by [16]. Additionally, the “moderate negative” to “strong negative” ratings shown for the majority of psychometric properties in the current review are similar to those reported by other systematic reviews [16, 42, 43]. These psychometric properties were rated poorly as the correlations were predominantly below the acceptable levels for test-retest reliability and convergent validity. However, authors from several studies included in the current review reported that the PAQs demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability and convergent validity, which conflicts with findings from this current review. The discrepancy in these interpretations is because authors in the included studies considered test-retest reliability and convergent validity as acceptable based on level of significance (p ≤ 0.05), rather than the strength of the relationship (i.e., magnitude of the r-values). Accordingly, the strength of the relationship should be accounted for by future studies, as larger sample sizes are likely to generate associations at a statistically significant level, irrespective of the strength of the relationship. While the methodological quality of measurement error was rated as “good” to “excellent”, the four PAQs corresponding to these ratings (i.e., YPAS, AAS [modified], PASE and VAPAQ) were classified as “indeterminate” for psychometric quality. This is because the included studies did not report minimal important change (MIC) with respect to smallest detectable change (SDC), or whether MIC ranged beyond the limits of agreement (LOA). According to Terwee, Roorda [44], SDC and MIC are essential parameters for reliability to allow better interpretation of change scores. Subsequently, more studies need to incorporate measurement error when examining reliability of PAQs and consider calculations of MIC and SDC and/or LOA for this psychometric property.

Limitation

The primary purpose of the current review was to examine the psychometric properties of interview-administered, Past-week and Usual-week PAQs in an adult population. Thus, investigating the psychometric properties of PAQs with recall time-frames beyond, or within, the 7-day period was beyond the scope of the study. In addition, the current review selectively included studies that examined the psychometric properties of PAQs that were published in an English-speaking country because cultural diversity appears to impact on the psychometric properties of PAQs (e.g., errors of translation between languages, interpretation difficulties). Furthermore, the current review specifically selected studies that were conducted in an adult population, given that PAQs for children and adolescents are developed according to their literacy level. Thus, comparing the psychometric qualities of PAQs between studies that were conducted in English-speaking and non-English speaking countries and between age groups (i.e., children, adolescents and adults) may expand our knowledge on the usability of PAQs across different population groups. Whilst we made every effort to exclude studies that included participants with diagnosed cognitive impairment, the majority of the included studies did not screen for cognitive impairment. Therefore, future studies should consider conducting cognitive assessments to ensure that cognitive conditions are not influencing the psychometric properties of PAQs, particularly in older adults. With respect to abstract screening, there were discrepancies between those who conducted the literature search and those who screened the abstracts, which may have introduced selective bias. However, the reviewers were rigorously trained prior to abstract screening to ensure transparency of the inclusion criteria, and any disagreement between reviewers were resolved by the primary author (KD). Finally, examining the responsiveness and cross-cultural validity of PAQs was beyond the scope of this review. Therefore, comparing the psychometric quality of these properties between different PAQ types may allow better understanding of the sensitivity to changes in PA level.

Conclusion

The current review demonstrated that the psychometric quality of the majority of reported psychometric properties exhibited “negative” ratings. In addition, minimal differences were identified in the psychometric quality between Usual-week and Past-week PAQs. These findings suggested that the psychometric qualities of commonly used interview-administered PAQs are weak irrespective of recall methods. Therefore, caution should be used when measuring PA level using the PAQs included in this review. According to the weighted mean of the r-values, test-retest reliability was stronger for Usual-week PAQs compared with Past-week PAQs, although the reverse was identified for convergent validity for direct measures of PA level. These results indicate that Usual-week PAQs may be more suitable when identifying PA levels, and its corresponding association with physical fitness, of a large population for epidemiological studies. Conversely, Past-week PAQs may allow better detection of changes in PA level following an intervention. Finally, the interview-administered PAQs exhibited stronger convergent validity than previously reported for self-administered PAQs [16]. Therefore, whilst interview-administered PAQs may be time-consuming and cumbersome, researchers may opt to utilise this method over self-administered PAQs to obtain greater accuracy in physical activity level. However, irrespective of the strength of correlations, it is important to note that the quality of the measurement properties were either not examined or were quite poor. Subsequently, future studies should investigate the psychometric properties using more robust methodologies based on the COSMIN to better understand the usability of current PAQs, or to develop new PAQs by addressing issues identified in this review.

Abbreviations

AAS: 

Active Australia Survey

CaMos: 

Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study

CAQ-PAI: 

College Alumni Questionnaire – Physical Activity Index

COSMIN: 

Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument

ICC: 

Intra-class correlation coefficient

IPAQLF: 

International Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form

IPAQ-SF: 

International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form

IPEQ-WA: 

Incidental and planned exercise questionnaire

LOA: 

Limits of agreement

MAQ: 

Modified activity questionnaire

MET: 

Metabolic equivalent of task

MIC: 

Minimal important change

NE: 

Not evaluated

NHS II: 

Nurses’ Health Study version II

NR: 

Not reported

NZPAQ-LF: 

New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Long Form

NZPAQ-SF: 

New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form

PA: 

Physical activity

PAAQ: 

Physical activity adult questionnaire

PAQ: 

Physical activity questionnaire

PAR: 

Physical activity recall questionnaire

PASE: 

Physical activity scale for the elderly

Phone-FITT: 

Phone fitness

PRISMA: 

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PWMAQ: 

Past week modified activity questionnaire

SCD: 

Smallest detectable change

VAPAQ: 

Veterans Physical Activity Questionnaire

WHO: 

World health organisation

YPAS: 

Yale Physical Activity Survey

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Peter Fowler and Dr. Colette Thomas for their assistance with screening and compilation of full text articles.

Funding

The authors did not receive funding for this systematic review.

Availability of data and materials

All data are present in the tables and figures.

Authors’ contributions

KD contributed to the concept, design of work, acquisition of analysis, interpretation of data and drafting of work and approved the submitted versions and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. RS contributed to the concept, design of work, interpretation of data and drafting and revision of work and approved the submitted versions and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. LP contributed to acquisition of data, analysis of data and drafting of work and approved the submitted versions and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. RC contributed to the concept, design of work, interpretation of data and drafting and revision of work and approved the submitted versions and agreed both to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was not applicable as this manuscript was a systematic review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
(2)
Department Special needs Education, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
(3)
School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
(4)
Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

References

  1. Rush E, Simmons D. Physical activity in children: prevention of obesity and type 2 diabetes. Med Sport Sci. 2014;60:113–21.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Pedersen BK, Saltin B. Exercise as medicine - evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(Suppl 3):1–72.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Doma K, Grant A, Morris J. The effects of balance training on balance performance and functional outcome measures following Total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(10):2367–85.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Pierce DR, Doma K, Leicht AS. Acute effects of exercise mode on arterial stiffness and wave reflection in healthy young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Physiol. 2018;9:73.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Poirier P, Giles TD, Bray GA, Hong Y, Stern JS, Pi-Sunyer FX, et al. Obesity and cardiovascular disease: pathophysiology, evaluation, and effect of weight loss: an update of the 1997 American Heart Association scientific statement on obesity and heart disease from the obesity Committee of the Council on nutrition, physical activity, and metabolism. Circulation. 2006;113(6):898–918.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Fussenich LM, Boddy LM, Green DJ, Graves LE, Foweather L, Dagger RM, et al. Physical activity guidelines and cardiovascular risk in children: a cross sectional analysis to determine whether 60 minutes is enough. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):67.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Oja P, Titze S. Physical activity recommendations for public health: development and policy context. EPMA J. 2011;2(3):253–9.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Babor TF, Sciamanna CN, Pronk NP. Assessing multiple risk behaviors in primary care. Screening issues and related concepts. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27(2 Suppl):42–53.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:115.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Ainsworth BE, Caspersen CJ, Matthews CE, Masse LC, Baranowski T, Zhu W. Recommendations to improve the accuracy of estimates of physical activity derived from self report. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(Suppl 1):S76–84.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Shephard RJ, Aoyagi Y. Seasonal variations in physical activity and implications for human health. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009;107(3):251–71.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Merkx A, Ausems M, Bude L, de Vries R, Nieuwenhuijze MJ. Factors affecting perceived change in physical activity in pregnancy. Midwifery. 2017;51:16–23.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, de Vet HC, Terwee CB. Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):659–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Doma K, Speyer R, Leicht AS, Cordier R. Comparison of psychometric properties between usual-week and past-week self-reported physical activity questionnaires: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):10.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown WJ, Burton NW, Marshall AL, Miller YD. Reliability and validity of a modified self-administered version of the active Australia physical activity survey in a sample of mid-age women. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32(6):535–41.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Fjeldsoe BS, Winkler EA, Marshall AL, Eakin EG, Reeves MM. Active adults recall their physical activity differently to less active adults: test-retest reliability and validity of a physical activity survey. Health Promot J Austr. 2013;24(1):26–31.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Touvier M, Kesse-Guyot E, Mejean C, Pollet C, Malon A, Castetbon K, et al. Comparison between an interactive web-based self-administered 24 h dietary record and an interview by a dietitian for large-scale epidemiological studies. Br J Nutr. 2011;105(7):1055–64.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf). 2005;27(3):281–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Okamoto K, Ohsuka K, Shiraishi T, Hukazawa E, Wakasugi S, Furuta K. Comparability of epidemiological information between self- and interviewer-administered questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(5):505–11.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Schnall AH, Wolkin A, Nakata N. In: Horney JA, editor. Chapter 9 Methods: questionnaire development and interviewing techniques. London: Mica Haley; 2018.Google Scholar
  23. Forsen L, Loland NW, Vuillemin A, Chinapaw MJ, van Poppel MN, Mokkink LB, et al. Self-administered physical activity questionnaires for the elderly: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40(7):601–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. van Poppel MN, Chinapaw MJ, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40(7):565–600.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Aparicio-Ugarriza R, Mielgo-Ayuso J, Benito PJ, Pedrero-Chamizo R, Ara I, Gonzalez-Gross M, et al. Physical activity assessment in the general population; instrumental methods and new technologies. Nutr Hosp. 2015;31(Suppl 3):219–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Cordier R, Speyer R, Chen YW, Wilkes-Gillan S, Brown T, Bourke-Taylor H, et al. Evaluating the psychometric quality of social skills measures: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132299.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Cordier R, Chen YW, Speyer R, Totino R, Doma K, Leicht A, et al. Child-report measures of occupational performance: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147751.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar
  32. Hakkinen A, Malkia E, Hakkinen K, Jappinen I, Laitinen L, Hannonen P. Effects of detraining subsequent to strength training on neuromuscular function in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(10):1075–81.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Sarkin JA, Johnson SS, Prochaska JO, Prochaska JM. Applying the transtheoretical model to regular moderate exercise in an overweight population: validation of a stages of change measure. Prev Med. 2001;33(5):462–9.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Delbaere K, Hauer K, Lord SR. Evaluation of the incidental and planned activity questionnaire (IPEQ) for older people. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(14):1029–34.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Chu AH, Ng SH, Koh D, Muller-Riemenschneider F. Reliability and validity of the self- and interviewer-administered versions of the global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ). PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136944.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Vuillemin A, Oppert JM, Guillemin F, Essermeant L, Fontvieille AM, Galan P, et al. Self-administered questionnaire compared with interview to assess past-year physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(6):1119–24.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Mujika I, Padilla S. Muscular characteristics of detraining in humans. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(8):1297–303.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Pettee Gabriel K, McClain JJ, High RR, Schmid KK, Whitfield GP, Ainsworth BE. Patterns of accelerometer-derived estimates of inactivity in middle-age women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(1):104–10.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Rehn TA, Munkvik M, Lunde PK, Sjaastad I, Sejersted OM. Intrinsic skeletal muscle alterations in chronic heart failure patients: a disease-specific myopathy or a result of deconditioning? Heart Fail Rev. 2012;17(3):421–36.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Bickel CS, Cross JM, Bamman MM. Exercise dosing to retain resistance training adaptations in young and older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1177–87.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Reimers AK, Mess F, Bucksch J, Jekauc D, Woll A. Systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires assessing the neighbourhood environment in the context of youth physical activity behaviour. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:461.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Silsbury Z, Goldsmith R, Rushton A. Systematic review of the measurement properties of self-report physical activity questionnaires in healthy adult populations. BMJ Open. 2015;5(9):e008430.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HC. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1062–7.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Nadalin V, Bentvelsen K, Kreiger N. Reliability of self-reports: data from the Canadian multi-Centre osteoporosis study (CaMos). Chronic Dis Canada. 2004;25(2):28–31.Google Scholar
  46. Merom D, Delbaere K, Cumming R, Voukelatos A, Rissel C, Van Der Ploeg HP, et al. Incidental and planned exercise questionnaire for seniors: validity and responsiveness. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46(5):947–54.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Pettee Gabriel K, McClain JJ, Lee CD, Swan PD, Alvar BA, Mitros MR, et al. Evaluation of physical activity measures used in middle-aged women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(7):1403–12.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Kriska AM, Knowler WC, LaPorte RE, Drash AL, Wing RR, Blair SN, et al. Development of questionnaire to examine relationship of physical activity and diabetes in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care. 1990;13(4):401–11.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Kriska AM, Edelstein SL, Hamman RF, Otto A, Bray GA, Mayer-Davis EJ, et al. Physical activity in individuals at risk for diabetes: diabetes prevention program. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(5):826–32.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Schulz LO, Harper IT, Smith CJ, Kriska AM, Ravussin E. Energy intake and physical activity in Pima Indians: comparison with energy expenditure measured by doubly-labeled water. Obes Res. 1994;2(6):541–8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Gill DP, Jones GR, Zou GY, Speechley M. The phone-FITT: a brief physical activity interview for older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2008;16(3):292–315.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Colbert LH, Matthews CE, Havighurst TC, Kim K, Schoeller DA. Comparative validity of physical activity measures in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(5):867–76.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Dipietro L, Caspersen CJ, Ostfeld AM, Nadel ER. A survey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(5):628-42.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Gennuso KP, Matthews CE, Colbert LH. Reliability and validity of 2 self-report measures to assess sedentary behavior in older adults. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(5):727–32.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Harada ND, Chiu V, King AC, Stewart AL. An evaluation of three self-report physical activity instruments for older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(6):962–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Kolbe-Alexander TL, Lambert EV, Harkins JB, Ekelund U. Comparison of two methods of measuring physical activity in south African older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2006;14(1):98–114.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Moore DS, Ellis R, Allen PD, Cherry KE, Monroe PA, O'Neil CE, et al. Construct validation of physical activity surveys in culturally diverse older adults: a comparison of four commonly used questionnaires. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2008;79(1):42–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Brown WJ, Trost SG, Bauman A, Mummery K, Owen N. Test-retest reliability of four physical activity measures used in population surveys. J Sci Med Sport. 2004;7(2):205–15.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Brown W, Bauman A, Chey T, Trost S, Mummery K. Comparison of surveys used to measure physical activity. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2004;28(2):128–34.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Creamer M, Bowles HR, von Hofe B, Pettee Gabriel K, Kohl HW 3rd, Bauman A. Utility of computer-assisted approaches for population surveillance of physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11(6):1111–9.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Mahabir S, Baer DJ, Giffen C, Clevidence BA, Campbell WS, Taylor PR, et al. Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from 4 physical activity questionnaires with doubly labeled water estimates in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84(1):230–6.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  62. Rauh MJ, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Sallis JF, Gleghorn A. Reliability and validity of self-reported physical activity in Latinos. Int J Epidemiol. 1992;21(5):966–71.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Washburn RA, Smith KW, Goldfield SR, McKinlay JB. Reliability and physiologic correlates of the Harvard alumni activity survey in a general population. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(12):1319–26.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Masse LC, Fulton JE, Watson KB, Tortolero S, Kohl HW 3rd, Meyers MC, et al. Comparing the validity of 2 physical activity questionnaire formats in African-American and Hispanic women. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9(2):237–48.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Ahn GE, Chmiel JS, Dunlop DD, Helenowski IB, Semanik PA, Song J, et al. Self-reported and objectively measured physical activity in adults with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(5):701–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Garriguet D, Tremblay S, Colley RC. Comparison of physical activity adult questionnaire results with accelerometer data. Health Rep. 2015;26(7):11–7.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Ainsworth BE, Macera CA, Jones DA, Reis JP, Addy CL, Bowles HR, et al. Comparison of the 2001 BRFSS and the IPAQ physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(9):1584–92.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Moy KL, Scragg RK, McLean G, Carr H. The New Zealand physical activity questionnaires: validation by heart-rate monitoring in a multiethnic population. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(Suppl 1):S45–61.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Dinger MK, Oman RF, Taylor EL, Vesely SK, Able J. Stability and convergent validity of the physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE). J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2004;44(2):186–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Johansen KL, Painter P, Kent-Braun JA, Ng AV, Carey S, Da Silva M, et al. Validation of questionnaires to estimate physical activity and functioning in end-stage renal disease. Kidney Int. 2001;59(3):1121–7.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Washburn RA, Smith KW, Jette AM, Janney CA. The physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(2):153–62.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Pettee Gabriel K, McClain JJ, Schmid KK, Storti KL, Ainsworth BE. Reliability and convergent validity of the past-week modifiable activity questionnaire. Public Health Nutr. 2011;14(3):435–42.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  73. Albanes D, Conway JM, Taylor PR, Moe PW, Judd J. Validation and comparison of eight physical activity questionnaires. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass). 1990;1(1):65–71.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Blair SN, Haskell WL, Ho P, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Vranizan KM, Farquhar JW, et al. Assessment of habitual physical activity by a seven-day recall in a community survey and controlled experiments. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;122(5):794–804.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  75. Conway JM, Seale JL, Jacobs DR Jr, Irwin ML, Ainsworth BE. Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from doubly labeled water, a physical activity questionnaire, and physical activity records. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;75(3):519–25.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Garfield BE, Canavan JL, Smith CJ, Ingram KA, Fowler RP, Clark AL, et al. Stanford seven-day physical activity recall questionnaire in COPD. Eur Respir J. 2012;40(2):356–62.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  77. Gross LD, Sallis JF, Buono MJ, Roby JJ, Nelson JA. Reliability of interviewers using the seven-day physical activity recall. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1990;61(4):321–5.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Irwin ML, Ainsworth BE, Conway JM. Estimation of energy expenditure from physical activity measures: determinants of accuracy. Obes Res. 2001;9(9):517–25.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Sallis JF, Haskell WL, Wood PD, Fortmann SP, Rogers T, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity assessment methodology in the Five-City project. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121(1):91–106.PubMedView ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Taylor CB, Coffey T, Berra K, Iaffaldano R, Casey K, Haskell WL. Seven-day activity and self-report compared to a direct measure of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;120(6):818–24.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Washburn RA, Jacobsen DJ, Sonko BJ, Hill JO, Donnelly JE. The validity of the Stanford seven-day physical activity recall in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(8):1374–80.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Williams E, Klesges RC, Hanson CL, Eck LH. A prospective study of the reliability and convergent validity of three physical activity measures in a field research trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(12):1161–70.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Betz HH, Myers J, Jaffe A, Smith K, Dalman R. Reproducibility of the veterans physical activity questionnaire in an elderly population. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(3):376–81.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement