The interday reliability of the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity (IDEEA) has not been studied to date. The study purpose was to examine the interday variability and reliability on two consecutive days collected with the IDEEA, as well as to predict the number of days needed to provide a reliable estimate of several movement (walking and climbing stairs) and nonmovement (lying, reclining, and sitting) behaviors and standing in older adults. The sample included 126 older adults (74 women) who wore the IDEEA for 48 hr. Results showed low variability between the 2 days, and the reliability was from moderate (intraclass coefficient correlation = .34) to high (.80) in most of movement and nonmovement behaviors analyzed. The Bland–Altman plots showed high–moderate agreement between days, and the Spearman–Brown formula estimated that 1.2 and 9.1 days of monitoring with the IDEEA are needed to achieve intraclass coefficient correlations ≥ .70 in older adults for sitting and climbing stairs, respectively.
Miguel Ángel de la Cámara, Sara Higueras-Fresnillo, David Martinez-Gomez and Óscar L. Veiga
David Martínez-Gómez, M. Andres Calabro, Gregory J. Welk, Ascension Marcos and Oscar L. Veiga
Recess is a frequent target in school-based physical activity (PA) promotion research but there are challenges in assessing PA during this time period. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of a recess PA recall (RPAR) instrument designed to assess total PA and time spent in moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) during recess. One hundred twenty-five 7th and 8th-grade students (59 females), age 12–14 years, participated in the study. Activity levels were objectively monitored on Mondays using different activity monitors (Yamax Digiwalker, Biotrainer and ActiGraph). On Tuesdays, 2 RPAR self-reports were administered within 1-hr. Test-retest reliability showed ICC = 0.87 and 0.88 for total PA and time spent in MVPA, respectively. The RPAR was correlated against Yamax (r = .35), Biotrainer (r = .40 and 0.54) and ActiGraph (r = .42) to assess total PA during recess. The RPAR was also correlated against ActiGraph (r = .54) to assess time spent in MVPA during recess. Mean difference between the RPAR and ActiGraph to assess time spent in MVPA during recess was no significant (2.15 ± 3.67 min, p = .313). The RPAR showed an adequate reliability and a reasonable validity for assessing PA during the school recess in youth.
Miguel A. de la Cámara, Sara Higueras-Fresnillo, Verónica Cabanas-Sánchez, Kabir P. Sadarangani, David Martinez-Gomez and Óscar L. Veiga
Background: To assess the validity of the single question to determine sedentary behavior (SB) by using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) in older adults. Methods: The sample included 163 participants (96 women) aged 65–92 years. Self-reported SB was obtained from the GPAQ. Objectively measured SB was assessed using the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity. Participants wore the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity continuously during 2 consecutive days while following their daily routine. The relative validity was assessed using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (ρ), and the agreement was examined using mean bias and 95% limit of agreement with the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity as reference. Results: The results showed small correlations (ρ = .291, P < .001) between the SB from the GPAQ and the objective measures, and ranged from ρ = .217 to ρ = .491 depending on the potential moderator. Similarly, the GPAQ underestimates the SB for approximately 2 hours per day in older adults (limit of agreement = −7.3 to 3.4 h/d). Conclusion: The GPAQ may not be the most suitable questionnaire for measuring SB in this population and should be used with caution because those studies that use this questionnaire in older adults may have an inaccurate measurement of SB levels.
Irene Esteban-Cornejo, David Martinez-Gomez, Laura Garcia-Cervantes, Francisco B. Ortega, Alvaro Delgado-Alfonso, José Castro-Piñero and Oscar L. Veiga
This study examined the associations of objectively measured physical activity in Physical Education and recess with academic performance in youth.
This cross-sectional study was conducted with 1,780 participants aged 6 to 18 years (863 girls). Physical activity was objectively measured by accelerometry and was also classified according to sex- and agespecific quartiles of physical activity intensities. Academic performance was assessed through school records.
Physical activity in physical education (PE) and recess was not associated with academic performance (β ranging from –0.038 to –0.003; all P > .05). Youth in the lowest quartile of physical activity in PE engaged in an average of 1.40 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and those in the highest quartile engaged in 21.60 min (for recess: lowest quartile, 2.20 min; highest quartile, 11.15 min). There were no differences in academic performance between quartiles of physical activity in Physical Education and recess.
Time spent at different physical activity intensities during PE and recess does not impair academic performance in youth.