Skip to main content

Table 5 Description of studies for the development and validation of interview-administered Past-week and Usual-week physical activity questionnaires

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

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
  1. 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