Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T14:04:25.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criterion-related validity of the last 7-day, short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in Swedish adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Ulf Ekelund ,
Hanna Sepp ,
Sören Brage ,
Wulf Becker ,
Rupert Jakes ,
Mark Hennings  and
Nicholas J Wareham
Ulf Ekelund*
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NL, UK Department of Physical Education and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
Hanna Sepp
Affiliation:
National Food Administration, Uppsala, Sweden
Sören Brage
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NL, UK
Wulf Becker
Affiliation:
National Food Administration, Uppsala, Sweden
Rupert Jakes
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NL, UK
Mark Hennings
Affiliation:
Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, UK
Nicholas J Wareham
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Fulbourn Road, Cambridge, CB1 9NL, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

To examine the validity of the short, last 7-day, self-administered form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ).

Design

All subjects wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days and completed the IPAQ questionnaire on the eighth day. Criterion validity was assessed by linear regression analysis and by modified Bland–Altman analysis. Specificity and sensitivity were calculated for classifying respondents according to the physical activity guidelines of the American College of Sports Medicine/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Setting

Workplaces in Uppsala, Sweden.

Subjects

One hundred and eighty-five (87 males) participants, aged 20 to 69 years.

Results

Total self-reported physical activity (PA) (MET-min day−1) was significantly correlated with average intensity of activity (counts min−1) from accelerometry (r=0.34, P<0.001). Gender, age, education and body mass index did not affect this relationship. Further, subcomponents of self-reported PA (time spent sitting, time in PA, time in moderate and vigorous activity (MVPA)) were significantly correlated with objectively measured PA (P<0.05). Self-reported time in PA was significantly different from time measured by accelerometry (mean difference: −25.9 min day−1; 95% limits of agreement: −172 to 120 min day−1; P<0.001). IPAQ identified 77% (specificity) of those who met the current PA guidelines of accumulating more than 30 min day−1 in MVPA as determined by accelerometry, whereas only 45% (sensitivity) of those not meeting the guidelines were classified correctly.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the short, last 7-days version of the IPAQ has acceptable criterion validity for use in Swedish adults. However, the IPAQ instrument significantly overestimated self-reported time spent in PA. The specificity to correctly classify people achieving current PA guidelines was acceptable, whereas the sensitivity was low.

Keywords

AccelerometryEnergy expenditureMET-minPhysical activitySelf-reportSensitivitySpecificity
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 258 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

References

1Caspersen, CJ, Powell, K, Christenson, G. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports 1985; 100: 126–31.Google ScholarPubMed
2Kriska, AM, Caspersen, CJ. A collection of physical activity questionnaires for health-related research. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1997; 29: S5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Wareham, NJ, Rennie, K. The assessment of physical activity in individuals and populations: why try to be more precise about how physical activity is assessed?. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 1998; 22: S30–8.Google ScholarPubMed
4Craig, CL, Marshall, AL, Sjöström, M, Bauman, AE, Booth, ML, Ainsworth, BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003; 35: 1381–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Pate, RR, Pratt, M, Blair, S, Haskell, WL, Macera, CA, Bouchard, C, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 273: 402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Tryon, W, Williams, R. Fully proportional actigraphy: a new instrument. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 1996; 28: 392–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Brage, S, Wedderkopp, N, Franks, PW, Andersen, LB, Froberg, K. Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003; 35: 1447–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Freedson, P, Melanson, E, Sirard, J. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1998; 30: 777–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Hendelman, D, Miller, K, Baggett, C, Debold, E, Freedson, P. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000; 32: S442–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Trost, S, Ward, D, Moorehead, S, Watson, P, Riner, W, Burke, J. Validity of the Computer Science and Applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1998; 30: 629–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Ekelund, U, Tingström, P, Kamwendo, K, Krantz, M, Nylander, E, Sjöström, M, et al. The validity of the Computer Science and Applications activity monitor for use in coronary artery disease patients during level walking. Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging 2002; 22: 248–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Ekelund, U, Sjöström, M, Yngve, A, Poortvliet, E, Nilsson, A, Froberg, K, et al. Physical activity assessed by activity monitor and doubly labeled water in children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2001; 33: 275–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Ekelund, U, Åman, J, Westerterp, K. Is the ArteACC index a valid indicator of free-living physical activity in adolescents?. Obesity Research 2003; 11: 793–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Leenders, NY, Sherman, WM, Nagaraja, HN, Kien, CL. Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2001; 33: 1233–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Ekelund, U, Yngve, A, Sjöström, M, Westerterp, K. Field evaluation of the Computer Science and Application's Inc. activity monitor during running and skating training in adolescent athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine 2000; 21: 586–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Ekelund, U, Aman, J, Yngve, A, Renman, C, Westerterp, K, Sjöstrom, M. Physical activity but not energy expenditure is reduced in obese adolescents: a case–control study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2002; 76: 935–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Bland, JM, Altman, DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1(8476): 307–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Sundquist, K, Qvist, J, Johansson, SE, Sundquist, J. Increasing trends of obesity in Sweden between 1996/97 and 2000/01. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2004; 28: 254–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Wareham, NJ, Jakes, RW, Rennie, KL, Mitchell, J, Hennings, S, Day, NE. Validity and repeatability of the EPIC–Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire. International Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 31: 168–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Jacobs, DR Jr, Ainsworth, BE, Hartman, TJ, Leon, AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1993; 25: 81–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Chasan-Taber, L, Erickson, JB, Nasca, PC, Chasan-Taber, S, Freedson, PS. Validity and reproducibility of a physical activity questionnaire in women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2002; 34: 987–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Aadahl, M, Jorgensen, T. Validation of a new self-report instrument for measuring physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003; 35: 1196–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Norman, A, Bellocco, R, Bergström, A, Wolk, A. Validity and reproducibility of self-reported total physical activity – differences by relative weight. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders 2001; 25: 682–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed