Assessment of physical activity and inactivity in multiple domains of daily life: a comparison between a computerized questionnaire and the SenseWear Armband complemented with an electronic diary

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Johan Lefevre²  Renaat Philippaerts¹  Tineke Scheers³ 

[1] Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium;Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, 3001, Leuven, Belgium;Research Foundation, Flanders, Belgium

关键词: Epidemiology;    Sedentary behavior;    Activities of daily living;    Activity monitor;    Self-report;    Validity;    Measurement;   

Others  :  824810
DOI  :  10.1186/1479-5868-9-71

 received in 2011-10-16, accepted in 2012-05-30,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Although differences between paper-and-pencil questionnaires and accelerometers have been reported for overall physical activity and time spent in moderate and vigorous activity, few studies have looked at domain-specific behavior. This study compared estimates of domain-specific physical (in)activity obtained with the Flemish physical activity computerized questionnaire (FPACQ) with those obtained from a combination of the SenseWear Armband and an electronic diary. Furthermore, it was investigated whether the correspondence between the two methods varied with gender and age.

Methods

Data were obtained from 442 Flemish adults (41.4±9.8 years). Physical activity was questioned with the FPACQ and measured for seven consecutive days using the SenseWear Armband together with an electronic activity diary (SWD). Analogous variables were calculated from the FPACQ and SWD. Mean differences and associations between FPACQ and SWD outcomes were examined with paired t-tests and Pearson correlations. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the level of agreement between the two methods. Main effects and interaction of gender and age groups (20–34; 35–49; 50–64 years) on differences between FPACQ and SWD outcomes were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs.

Results

All parameters of the FPACQ were significantly correlated with SWD assessments (r = 0.21 to 0.65). Reported activity was significantly different from SWD-obtained values for all parameters, except screen time. Physical activity level, total energy expenditure and time spent in vigorous activities were significantly higher (+0.14 MET, +25.09 METhours·week^-1 and +1.66 hours·week^-1, respectively), and moderate activities and sedentary behavior significantly lower (-5.20 and -25.01 hours·week^-1, respectively) with the FPACQ compared to SWD. Time and energy expenditure of job activities and active transport were significantly higher, while household chores, motorized transport, eating and sleeping were significantly lower with the FPACQ. Time spent in sports was lower (-0.54 hours·week^-1), but energy expenditure higher (+4.18 METhours·week^-1) with the FPACQ. The correspondence between methods varied with gender and age, but results differed according to the intensity and domain of activity.

Conclusions

Despite the moderate correlations, significant differences between the two methods were found. In general, physical activity was higher and sedentary behavior lower as calculated from the FPACQ compared to SWD.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Scheers et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lagerros YT, Lagiou P: Assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure in epidemiological research of chronic diseases. Eur J Epidemiol 2007, 22:353-362.
• [2]Welk GJ: Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign: Human kinetics; 2002.
• [3]Wareham NJ, Rennie KL: The assessment of physical activity in individuals and populations: why try to be more precise about how physical activity is assessed? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998, 22(Suppl 2):S30-S38.
• [4]Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Gorber SC, Tremblay M: A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008, 5:56-80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M: Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40:181-188.
• [6]Shephard RJ: Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 2003, 37:197-206.
• [7]Sallis JF, Saelens BE: Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000, 71:S1-S14.
• [8]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, 40:565-600.
• [9]Dong L, Block G, Mandel S: Activities Contributing to Total Energy Expenditure in the United States: Results from the NHAPS Study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2004, 1:4-15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Hendelman D, Miller K, Baggett C, Debold E, Freedson P: Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32:S442-S449.
• [11]Bassett DR, Ainsworth BE, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O'Brien WL, King GA: Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32:S471-S480.
• [12]Leenders NY, Sherman WM, Nagaraja HN, Kien CL: Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001, 33:1233-1240.
• [13]Matton L, Wijndaele K, Duvigneaud N, Duquet W, Philippaerts R, Thomis M, Lefevre J: Reliability and validity of the Flemish Physical Activity Computerized Questionnaire in adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 2007, 78:293-306.
• [14]Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, Lindberg LD, Pleck JH, Sonenstein FL: Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 1998, 280:867-873.
• [15]Welk GJ, McClain JJ, Eisenmann JC, Wickel EE: Field validation of the MTI Actigraph and BodyMedia armband monitor using the IDEEA monitor. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007, 15:918-928.
• [16]Scheers T, Philippaerts R, Lefevre J: Variability in physical activity patterns as measured by the SenseWear Armband: how many days are needed? Eur J Appl Physiol 2012, 112:1653-1662.
• [17]Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, Pratt M, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sallis JF, et al.: International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35:1381-1395.
• [18]Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O'Brien WL, Bassett DR, Schmitz KH, Emplaincourt PO, et al.: Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32:S498-S504.
• [19]Dunton GF, Whalen CK, Jamner LD, Henker B, Floro JN: Using ecologic momentary assessment to measure physical activity during adolescence. Am J Prev Med 2005, 29:281-287.
• [20]Ekelund U, Sepp H, Brage S, Becker W, Jakes R, Hennings M, Wareham NJ: Criterion-related validity of the last 7-day, short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in Swedish adults. Public Health Nutr 2006, 9:258-265.
• [21]Boon RM, Hamlin MJ, Steel GD, Ross JJ: Validation of the New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire (NZPAQ-LF) and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-LF) with accelerometry. Br J Sports Med 2010, 44:741-746.
• [22]Vandelanotte C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Philippaerts R, Sjöström M, Sallis J: Reliability and validity of a computerized and Dutch version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). J Phys Act Health 2005, 63-75.
• [23]Philippaerts RM, Westerterp KR, Lefevre J: Comparison of two questionnaires with a tri-axial accelerometer to assess physical activity patterns. Int J Sports Med 2001, 22:34-39.
• [24]Johannsen DL, Calabro MA, Stewart J, Franke W, Rood JC, Welk GJ: Accuracy of armband monitors for measuring daily energy expenditure in healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010, 42:2134-2140.
• [25]St-Onge M, Mignault D, Allison DB, Rabasa-Lhoret R: Evaluation of a portable device to measure daily energy expenditure in free-living adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2007, 85:742-749.
• [26]Besson H, Brage S, Jakes RW, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ: Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2010, 91:106-114.
• [27]Timperio A, Salmon J, Crawford D: Validity and reliability of a physical activity recall instrument among overweight and non-overweight men and women. J Sci Med Sport 2003, 6:477-491.
• [28]Yore MM, Ham SA, Ainsworth BE, Kruger J, Reis JP, Kohl HW, Macera CA: Reliability and validity of the instrument used in BRFSS to assess physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007, 39:1267-1274.
• [29]Jacobs DR, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS: A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993, 25:81-91.
• [30]Ferrari P, Friedenreich C, Matthews CE: The role of measurement error in estimating levels of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol 2007, 166:832-840.
• [31]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, 35:1374-1380.
• [32]Calabro MA, Welk GJ, Carriquiry AL, Nusser SM, Beyler NK, Mathews CE: Validation of a computerized 24-hour physical activity recall (24PAR) instrument with pattern-recognition activity monitors. J Phys Act Health 2009, 6:211-220.
• [33]Rikli RE: Reliability, validity, and methodological issues in assessing physical activity in older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000, 71:S89-S96.
• [34]Colbert LH, Matthews CE, Havighurst TC, Kim K, Schoeller DA: Comparative validity of physical activity measures in older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:867-876.
• [35]Hagstromer M, Oja P, Sjostrom M: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutr 2006, 9:755-762.
• [36]Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, Hebert JR: The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol 2005, 161:389-398.
• [37]Slootmaker SM, Schuit AJ, Chinapaw MJ, Seidell JC, van Mechelen W: Disagreement in physical activity assessed by accelerometer and self-report in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 6:17. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Duncan GE, Sydeman SJ, Perri MG, Limacher MC, Martin AD: Can sedentary adults accurately recall the intensity of their physical activity? Prev Med 2001, 33:18-26.
• [39]Aadahl M, Jorgensen T: Validation of a new self-report instrument for measuring physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003, 35:1196-1202.
• [40]Levine JA: Measurement of energy expenditure. Public Health Nutr 2005, 8:1123-1132.
• [41]Berntsen S, Hageberg R, Aandstad A, Mowinckel P, Anderssen SA, Carlsen KH, Andersen LB: Validity of physical activity monitors in adults participating in free-living activities. Br J Sports Med 2010, 44:657-664.
• [42]Drenowatz C, Eisenmann JC: Validation of the SenseWear Armband at high intensity exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 2011, 111:883-887.
• [43]Masse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, Matthews CE, Trost SG, Catellier DJ, Treuth M: Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37:S544-S554.
• [44]Atienza AA, Moser RP, Perna F, Dodd K, Ballard-Barbash R, Troiano RP, Berrigan D: Self-reported and objectively measured activity related to biomarkers using NHANES. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:815-821.