The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)

Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)
Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)

Background: Sedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor. Methods: Cross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss. Results: All self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics. Conclusion: Self-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.

ActivPAL, Measurement, Physical activity, Questionnaires, Sedentary behaviour, Sitting, Surveillance, Validation
1479-5868
1-12
Chastin, S.F.M.
d8b90eaa-2cef-4e46-bca1-97a89bc6562c
Dontje, M.L.
9e40ca02-1844-479e-8caf-e24e63d704cb
Skelton, D.A.
6f059fbb-7957-413d-97b2-e8e9910923a5
Čukić, I.
de28d29b-4254-4620-b5c3-46c9ec4e6045
Shaw, R.J.
09cc73fb-7764-4a05-a1be-ccc11ce16bad
Gill, J.M.R.
1e31eb24-f833-462e-b610-23b5b28e7285
Greig, C.A.
41cda9b2-f4ac-4cb8-971a-318732f67cc5
Gale, C.R.
5bb2abb3-7b53-42d6-8aa7-817e193140c8
Deary, I.J.
14b88084-7a90-44e4-9da9-1a332b7afafb
Der, G.
3885d454-f6e4-4f59-98fa-4802e9550a4a
Dall, P.M.
0ef4b0dd-a29a-425c-906a-44d638ee6668
Cox, Simon
0e62aaed-24ad-4a74-b996-f606e40e5c55
Coulter, Elaine
55aaedce-4366-4426-becf-ef424444d99a
Fitzsimons, Claire
7fccaae1-bb1a-431e-8828-40b5b5205fbe
Granat, Malcolm
3d852403-ebcf-4ce6-bf11-9c2ec0461a7e
Gray, Cindy
f6d57b48-4348-4e88-b414-d6cb70a3812c
Hindle, Elaine
58d93f9e-f6e2-47a8-9f0d-c96ec54f5abb
Laird, Karen
6e9f6b20-8874-4a1d-b4fe-2777543de6ab
Mead, Gillian
e86d66fb-0a85-44ce-b6f6-ede4dff529e8
Mutrie, Nanette
1c005abf-6112-4418-a32e-bf2d0b2c26cf
Palmer, Victoria
44ba7e14-6300-489b-ba3a-eeddf59e1f14
Radakovic, Ratko
f104ec30-724a-4d5c-aed4-70cbd1cde897
Sattar, Naveed
c81a1259-e177-4522-a732-52d8218384f6
Starr, John
ad4e08e5-462e-4314-9026-98542f0b0512
Stewart, Sally
f4775b5c-b0dd-4609-a31a-4747078e9b48
Wyke, Sally
ad68c72b-485d-48c4-b083-4eb59e09c79a
on behalf of the Seniors USP team
Chastin, S.F.M.
d8b90eaa-2cef-4e46-bca1-97a89bc6562c
Dontje, M.L.
9e40ca02-1844-479e-8caf-e24e63d704cb
Skelton, D.A.
6f059fbb-7957-413d-97b2-e8e9910923a5
Čukić, I.
de28d29b-4254-4620-b5c3-46c9ec4e6045
Shaw, R.J.
09cc73fb-7764-4a05-a1be-ccc11ce16bad
Gill, J.M.R.
1e31eb24-f833-462e-b610-23b5b28e7285
Greig, C.A.
41cda9b2-f4ac-4cb8-971a-318732f67cc5
Gale, C.R.
5bb2abb3-7b53-42d6-8aa7-817e193140c8
Deary, I.J.
14b88084-7a90-44e4-9da9-1a332b7afafb
Der, G.
3885d454-f6e4-4f59-98fa-4802e9550a4a
Dall, P.M.
0ef4b0dd-a29a-425c-906a-44d638ee6668
Cox, Simon
0e62aaed-24ad-4a74-b996-f606e40e5c55
Coulter, Elaine
55aaedce-4366-4426-becf-ef424444d99a
Fitzsimons, Claire
7fccaae1-bb1a-431e-8828-40b5b5205fbe
Granat, Malcolm
3d852403-ebcf-4ce6-bf11-9c2ec0461a7e
Gray, Cindy
f6d57b48-4348-4e88-b414-d6cb70a3812c
Hindle, Elaine
58d93f9e-f6e2-47a8-9f0d-c96ec54f5abb
Laird, Karen
6e9f6b20-8874-4a1d-b4fe-2777543de6ab
Mead, Gillian
e86d66fb-0a85-44ce-b6f6-ede4dff529e8
Mutrie, Nanette
1c005abf-6112-4418-a32e-bf2d0b2c26cf
Palmer, Victoria
44ba7e14-6300-489b-ba3a-eeddf59e1f14
Radakovic, Ratko
f104ec30-724a-4d5c-aed4-70cbd1cde897
Sattar, Naveed
c81a1259-e177-4522-a732-52d8218384f6
Starr, John
ad4e08e5-462e-4314-9026-98542f0b0512
Stewart, Sally
f4775b5c-b0dd-4609-a31a-4747078e9b48
Wyke, Sally
ad68c72b-485d-48c4-b083-4eb59e09c79a

Chastin, S.F.M., Dontje, M.L., Skelton, D.A., Čukić, I., Shaw, R.J., Gill, J.M.R., Greig, C.A., Gale, C.R., Deary, I.J., Der, G., Dall, P.M., Cox, Simon, Coulter, Elaine, Fitzsimons, Claire, Granat, Malcolm, Gray, Cindy, Hindle, Elaine, Laird, Karen, Mead, Gillian, Mutrie, Nanette, Palmer, Victoria, Radakovic, Ratko, Sattar, Naveed, Starr, John, Stewart, Sally and Wyke, Sally , on behalf of the Seniors USP team (2018) Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL). International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15 (1), 1-12. (doi:10.1186/s12966-018-0652-x).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: Sedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor. Methods: Cross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss. Results: All self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics. Conclusion: Self-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.

Text
s12966-018-0652-x - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (994kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 9 February 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 February 2018
Published date: 2018
Keywords: ActivPAL, Measurement, Physical activity, Questionnaires, Sedentary behaviour, Sitting, Surveillance, Validation

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 418668
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/418668
ISSN: 1479-5868
PURE UUID: 8362d53e-3372-4122-aaf3-9142a91d637e
ORCID for C.R. Gale: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3361-8638

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 16 Mar 2018 17:30
Last modified: 03 Dec 2019 02:01

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: S.F.M. Chastin
Author: M.L. Dontje
Author: D.A. Skelton
Author: I. Čukić
Author: R.J. Shaw
Author: J.M.R. Gill
Author: C.A. Greig
Author: C.R. Gale ORCID iD
Author: I.J. Deary
Author: G. Der
Author: P.M. Dall
Author: Simon Cox
Author: Elaine Coulter
Author: Claire Fitzsimons
Author: Malcolm Granat
Author: Cindy Gray
Author: Elaine Hindle
Author: Karen Laird
Author: Gillian Mead
Author: Nanette Mutrie
Author: Victoria Palmer
Author: Ratko Radakovic
Author: Naveed Sattar
Author: John Starr
Author: Sally Stewart
Author: Sally Wyke

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×