Search Results

You are looking at 21 - 30 of 391 items for :

  • "self report measures" x
Clear All
Open access

Levi Frehlich, Christine Friedenreich, Alberto Nettel-Aguirre, Jasper Schipperijn and Gavin R. McCormack

to this evidence have relied on self-report measures that do not take into account the location in which physical activity is undertaken ( Ferdinand, Sen, Rahurkar, Engler, & Menachemi, 2012 ). Few neighborhood-based self-report physical activity measures exist, and despite demonstrating adequate

Restricted access

Ching-Yi Wang, Ching-Fan Sheu and Elizabeth Protas

The purpose of this study was to test the construct validity of the hierarchical levels of self-reported physical disability using health-related variables and physical-performance tests as criteria. The study participants were a community-based sample of 368 adults age 60 years or older. These older adults were grouped into 4 levels according to their physical-disability status (able, mildly disabled, moderately disabled, and severely disabled groups) based on their self-reported measures on the mobility, instrumented activity of daily living (IADL), and activities of daily living (ADL) domains. Health-related variables (body-mass index, number of comorbidities, depression status, mental status, and self-perceived health status) and eight performance-based tests demonstrated significant group differences. Self-reported measures of physical disability can be used to categorize older adults into different stages of physical functional decline.

Restricted access

Manuel Herrador-Colmenero, Manuel Pérez-García, Jonatan R. Ruiz and Palma Chillón

The first objective was to review and analyze self-reported measures used for assessing mode and frequency of commuting to and from school in youngsters (4–18.5 years old). The secondary objective was to conduct a qualitative appraisal of the identified studies. We searched five online databases: PubMed, SportDiscus, ProQuest, National Transportation Library, and Web of Knowledge. Four categories of search terms were identified: self-report, active transportation, school-aged children and school. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to determine whether the studies met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the reporting of the measures was assessed using a tailored list. The electronic search strategy produced 5,898 studies. After applying the inclusion criteria, we identified 158 studies. Sixty-three studies (39.8%) specified the question about modes of commuting to school. One hundred seven studies (67.7%) directly questioned the study subjects (i.e., children and/or adolescents). Twenty studies (12.7%) posed a valid and reliable question. The quality assessment of the self-report measures was medium. The self-report measures used in the literature for assessing commuting to school tend to be heterogeneous and make difficult interstudies comparisons. Therefore we put forward the idea of a standard question designed to elicit reliable, comparable information on commuting to school.

Restricted access

Marina M. Reeves, Alison L. Marshall, Neville Owen, Elisabeth A.H. Winkler and Elizabeth G. Eakin

Background:

We compared the responsiveness to change (prepost intervention) of 3 commonly-used self-report measures of physical activity.

Methods:

In a cluster-randomized trial of a telephone-delivered intervention with primary care patients, physical activity was assessed at baseline and 4 months (n = 381) using the 31-item CHAMPS questionnaire; the 6-item Active Australia Questionnaire (AAQ); and, 2 walking for exercise items from the US National Health Interview Survey (USNHIS). Responsiveness to change was calculated for frequency (sessions/week) and duration (MET·minutes/week) of walking and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity.

Results:

The greatest responsiveness for walking frequency was found with the USNHIS (0.45, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.72) and AAQ (0.43, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.67), and for walking duration with the USNHIS (0.27, 95%CI 0.13, 0.41) and CHAMPS (0.24, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.36). For moderate-to-vigorous activity, responsiveness for frequency was slightly higher for the AAQ (0.50, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.69); for duration it was slightly higher for CHAMPS (0.32, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.47).

Conclusions:

In broad-reach trials, brief self-report measures (USNHIS and AAQ) are useful for their comparability to population physical activity estimates and low respondent burden. These measures can be used without a loss in responsiveness to change relative to a more detailed self-report measure (CHAMPS).

Restricted access

Faisal Awad Barwais, Thomas F. Cuddihy, Tracy Washington, L. Michaud Tomson and Eric Brymer

Background:

Low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behavior (SB) are major public health concerns. This study was designed to develop and validate the 7-day Sedentary (S) and Light Intensity Physical Activity (LIPA) Log (7-day SLIPA Log), a self-report measure of specific daily behaviors.

Method:

To develop the log, 62 specific SB and LIPA behaviors were chosen from the Compendium of Physical Activities. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 sedentary volunteers to identify domains and behaviors of SB and LIPA. To validate the log, a further 22 sedentary adults were recruited to wear the GT3x for 7 consecutive days and nights.

Results:

Pearson correlations (r) between the 7-day SLIPA Log and GT3x were significant for sedentary (r = .86, P < .001), for LIPA (r = .80, P < .001). Lying and sitting postures were positively correlated with GT3x output (r = .60 and r = .64, P < .001, respectively). No significant correlation was found for standing posture (r = .14, P = .53).The kappa values between the 7-day SLIPA Log and GT3x variables ranged from 0.09 to 0.61, indicating poor to good agreement.

Conclusion:

The 7-day SLIPA Log is a valid self-report measure of SB and LIPA in specific behavioral domains.

Restricted access

Kathleen K. Hogan, William O. Perkins, Cameron J. Powden, and Matthew C. Hoch

Clinical Scenario:

Chronic low back pain is one of the most common causes of pain and disability. Currently, there is a need for more effective interventions to treat low back pain.

Clinical Question:

Does the use of custom foot orthotics improve self-reported measures of pain and function in adults with chronic low back pain?

Summary of Key Findings:

A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted for studies of level 2 evidence or higher that pertained to the clinical question. The search yielded 11 studies, of which one randomized control trial and two prospective cohorts fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles examined the effectiveness of custom foot orthotics in isolation compared with no treatment as well as custom foot orthotics in combination with usual care compared with usual care alone. The included studies all demonstrated that the use of custom foot orthotics reduce chronic low back pain after seven weeks of use. One included study was considered high-quality evidence while two were deemed low-quality evidence using the PEDro.

Clinical Bottom Line:

There is moderate evidence to support the use of custom foot orthotics to improve self-reported measures in adults with chronic low back pain after seven weeks of use.

Strength of Recommendation:

The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy recommends a grade of B for consistent limited-quality patient-oriented evidence.

Restricted access

Marieke J.G. van Heuvelen, Gertrudis I.J.M. Kempen, Johan Ormel and Mathieu H.G. de Greef

To evaluate the validity of self-report measures of physical fitness as substitutes for performance-based tests, self-reports and performance-based tests of physical fitness were compared. Subjects were a community-based sample of older adults (N = 624) aged 57 and over. The performance-based tests included endurance, flexibility, strength, balance, manual dexterity, and reaction time. The self-report evaluation assessed selected individual subcomponents of fitness and used both peers and absolute standards as reference. The results showed that compared to performance-based tests, the self-report items were more strongly interrelated and they less effectively evaluated the different subdomains of physical fitness. Corresponding performance-based tests and self-report items were weakly to moderately associated. All self-report items were related most strongly with the performance-based endurance test. Apparently. older people tend to estimate overall fitness, in which endurance plays an important part, rather than individual subcomponents of Illness. Therefore, the self-report measures have limited validity as predictors of performance-based physical fitness.

Restricted access

Ching-Yi Wang, Ming-Hsia Hu, Hui-Ya Chen and Ren-Hau Li

To determine the test–retest reliability and criterion validity of self-reported function in mobility and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) in older adults, a convenience sample of 70 subjects (72.9 ± 6.6 yr, 34 male) was split into able and disabled groups based on baseline assessment and into consistently able, consistently disabled, and inconsistent based on repeat assessments over 2 weeks. The criterion validities of the self-reported measures of mobility domain and IADL-physical subdomain were assessed with concurrent baseline measures of 4 mobility performances, and that of the self-reported measure of IADL-cognitive subdomain, with the Mini-Mental State Examination. Test–retest reliability was moderate for the mobility, IADL-physical, and IADL-cognitive subdomains (κ = .51–.66). Those who reported being able at baseline also performed better on physical- and cognitive-performance tests. Those with variable performance between test occasions tended to report inconsistently on repeat measures in mobility and IADL-cognitive, suggesting fluctuations in physical and cognitive performance.

Full access

Kelley K. Pettee Gabriel, James R. Morrow Jr. and Anne-Lorraine T. Woolsey

Context:

The selection of the most psychometrically appropriate self-report tool(s) to measure specific physical activity constructs has been a challenge for researchers, public health practitioners, and clinicians, alike. The lack of a reasonable gold standard measure and inconsistent use of established and evolving terminology have contributed to these challenges. The variation of self-report measures and quality of the derived summary estimates could be attributed to the absence of a standardized conceptual framework for physical activity.

Objective:

To present a conceptual framework for physical activity as a complex and multidimensional behavior that differentiates behavioral and physiological constructs of human movement.

Process:

The development of a conceptual framework can provide the basic foundation from which to standardize definitions, guide design and development of self-report measures, and provide consistency during instrument selection.

Conclusions:

Based on our proposed conceptual framework for physical activity, we suggest that physical activity is more clearly defined as the behavior that involves human movement, resulting in physiological attributes including increased energy expenditure and improved physical fitness. Utilization of the proposed conceptual framework can result in better instrument choices and consistency in methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviors across research and public health practice.

Restricted access

John M. Jakicic, Wendy C. King, Bethany Barone Gibbs, Renee J. Rogers, Amy D. Rickman, Kelliann K. Davis, Abdus Wahed and Steven H. Belle

Background:

To compare moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) assessed via questionnaires to an objective measure of MVPA in overweight or obese young adults.

Methods:

MVPA was assessed in 448 [median BMI = 31.2 (Interquartile Range: 28.5–34.3) kg/m2] young adults [median age: 30.9 (Interquartile Range: 27.8–33.7) years]. Measures included the SenseWear Armband (MVPAOBJ), the Paffenbarger Questionnaire (MVPAPAFF), and the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). The GPAQ was used to compute total MVPA (MVPAGPAQ-TOTAL) and MVPA from transportation and recreation (MVPAGPAQ-REC).

Results:

The association between MVPAOBJ and MVPAPAFF was r s = 0.40 (P < .0001). Associations between MVPAOBJ and MVPAGPAQ-TOTAL and MVPAGPAQ-REC were r s = 0.19 and r s = 0.32, respectively (P < .0001). MVPAGPAQ-TOTAL was significantly greater than MVPAOBJ (P < .0001). Median differences in MET-min/week between MVPAOBJ and MVPAPAFF or MVPAGPAQ-REC were not significantly different from zero. There was proportional bias between each self-reported measure of MVPA and MVPAOBJ. There were significant associations between all measures of MVPA and fitness. MVPAOBJ was significantly associated with BMI and percent body fat.

Conclusions:

Objective and self-reported measures of MVPA are weakly to moderately correlated, with substantial differences between measures. MVPAOBJ provided predictive validity with fitness, BMI, and percent body fat. Thus, an objective measure of MVPA may be preferred to self-report in young adults.