Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:25:32.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Maria Hagströmer ,
Pekka Oja  and
Michael Sjöström
Maria Hagströmer*
Affiliation:
Unit for Preventive Nutrition – Novum, Department of Biosciences, Karolinska Institutet, S-141 57 Huddinge, Sweden Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Neurotec, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Pekka Oja
Affiliation:
Unit for Preventive Nutrition – Novum, Department of Biosciences, Karolinska Institutet, S-141 57 Huddinge, Sweden
Michael Sjöström
Affiliation:
Unit for Preventive Nutrition – Novum, Department of Biosciences, Karolinska Institutet, S-141 57 Huddinge, Sweden
*
*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.
Introduction

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was developed to measure health-related physical activity (PA) in populations. The short version of the IPAQ has been tested extensively and is now used in many international studies. The present study aimed to explore the validity characteristics of the long-version IPAQ.

Subjects and methods

Forty-six voluntary healthy male and female subjects (age, mean±standard deviation: 40.7±10.3 years) participated in the study. PA indicators derived from the long, self-administered IPAQ were compared with data from an activity monitor and a PA log book for concurrent validity, and with aerobic fitness, body mass index (BMI) and percentage body fat for construct validity.

Results

Strong positive relationships were observed between the activity monitor data and the IPAQ data for total PA (ρ = 0.55, P < 0.001) and vigorous PA (ρ = 0.71, P < 0.001), but a weaker relationship for moderate PA (ρ = 0.21, P = 0.051). Calculated MET-h day−1 from the PA log book was significantly correlated with MET-h day−1 from the IPAQ (ρ = 0.67, P < 0.001). A weak correlation was observed between IPAQ data for total PA and both aerobic fitness (ρ = 0.21, P = 0.051) and BMI (ρ = 0.25, P = 0.009). No significant correlation was observed between percentage body fat and IPAQ variables. Bland–Altman analysis suggested that the inability of activity monitors to detect certain types of activities might introduce a source of error in criterion validation studies.

Conclusions

The long, self-administered IPAQ questionnaire has acceptable validity when assessing levels and patterns of PA in healthy adults.

Keywords

Activity monitorAerobic capacityAnthropometryAssessment methodologyLog book
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , September 2006 , pp. 755 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2006

References

1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Physical Activity and Health. A Report from the Surgeon General. Pittsburg, PA: CDC, 1996.Google Scholar
2Booth, M. Assessment of physical activity: an international perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2000; 71: S114–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Oja, P. Descriptive epidemiology of health-related physical activity and fitness. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 1995; 66: 303–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Welk, G, Physical Assessment in Health-related Research. pLeeds, UK: Human Kinetics, 2002.Google Scholar
5Wareham, NJ, Rennie, KL. 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(Suppl. 2): S30–8.Google ScholarPubMed
6Kriska, A, Caspersen, C, Introduction. In: Pereira, MA, FitzerGerald, SJ, Gregg, EW, Joswiak, ML, Ryan, WJ, Suminski, RR, et al. eds. A Collection of Physical Activity Questionnaires for Health-related Research [special issue]. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1997; 29: S3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Craig, CL, Marshall, AL, Sjostrom, 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
8Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA). Activity Monitor Operator's Manual, Model 7164, Version AM 7164-2.2. Shalimar, FL: CSA, 1995.Google Scholar
9Sallis, JF, Saelens, BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2000; 71: S1–S14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Rutten, A, Abu-Omar, K. Prevalence of physical activity in the European Union Sozial- und Präventivmedizin 2004; 49: 281–9.Google ScholarPubMed
11 The International Physical Activity Questionnaire, 2005. Available at http://www.ipaq.ki.se/Google Scholar
12American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, and flexibility in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1998; 30: 975–91.Google Scholar
13Ainsworth, BE, Haskell, WL, Leon, AS, Jacobs, DR Jr, Montoye, HJ, Sallis, JF, et al. Compendium of physical activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1993; 25: 71–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Ainsworth, BE, Haskell, WL, Whitt, MC, Irwin, ML, Swartz, AM, Strath, SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000; 32: S498–S504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Freedson, PS, 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
16Yngve, A, Nilsson, A, Sjostrom, M, Ekelund, U. Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2003; 35: 320–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Borg, G, Borg's Perceived Exertion and Pain Scales. Stockholm: Human Kinetics, 1998.Google Scholar
18American College of Sports Medicine. Physical fitness testing. In: ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. London: Williams & Wilkins, 1995; 49–78.Google Scholar
19Durnin, JV, Womersley, J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. British Journal of Nutrition 1974; 32: 77–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Norton, K, Olds, T. Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body Measurement for Sports and Health Courses. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 1996; 80–90.Google Scholar
21Altman, D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
22Atkinson, G, Nevill, AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine 1998; 26: 217–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23Rennie, KL, Wareham, NJ. The validation of physical activity instruments for measuring energy expenditure: problems and pitfalls. Public Health Nutrition 1998; 1: 265–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Schoeller, DA. Measurement of energy expenditure in free-living humans by using doubly labeled water. Journal of Nutrition 1988; 118: 1278–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25Ekelund, U, Sjostrom, 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
26Sirard, JR, Pate, RR. Physical activity assessment in children and adolescents. Sports Medicine 2001; 31: 439–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Washburn, RA, Heath, GW, Jackson, AW. Reliability and validity issues concerning large-scale surveillance of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2000; 71: S104–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Bassett, DR Jr. Validity and reliability issues in objective monitoring of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2000; 71: S30–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29Klesges, RC, Eck, LH, Mellon, MW, Fulliton, W, Somes, GW, Hanson, CL. The accuracy of self-reports of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1990; 22: 690–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Sirard, JR, Melanson, EL, Li, L, Freedson, PS. Field evaluation of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. physical activity monitor. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000; 32: 695–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Hendelman, 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
32Ekelund, U, Yngve, A, Sjostrom, 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
33Freedson, 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
34Ainsworth, BE, Bassett, DR Jr, Strath, SJ, Swartz, AM, O'Brien, WL, Thompson, RW, et al. Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000; 32: S457–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35Nichols, JF, Morgan, CG, Chabot, LE, Sallis, JF, Calfas, KJ. Assessment of physical activity with the Computer Science and Applications, Inc., accelerometer: laboratory versus field validation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2000; 71: 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Wareham, 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
37Pereira, MA, FitzerGerald, SJ, Gregg, EW, Joswiak, ML, Ryan, WJ, Suminski, RR, et al. , eds. A collection of Physical Activity Questionnaires for health-related research [special issue]. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 1997; 29: S1–205.Google ScholarPubMed
38Jacobs, DR Jr, Haskell, HW, Haskell, L, Pirie, P, Sidney, S. Reliability and validity of a short physical activity history: CARDIA and Minnesota Heart Health Program. J Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation 1989; 9: 448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Bouchard, C, Tremblay, A, Leblanc, C, Lortie, G, Savard, R, Theriault, G. A method to assess energy expenditure in children and adults. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1983; 37: 461–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed