Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Mar 4;17(1):31.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3.

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stephanie A Prince  1   2 , Luca Cardilli  3   4 , Jennifer L Reed  5   6   7 , Travis J Saunders  8 , Chris Kite  4   9 , Kevin Douillette  8 , Karine Fournier  10 , John P Buckley  4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Stephanie A Prince et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. .

Abstract

Background: Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers).

Objective: The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults.

Methods: Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses.

Results: The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66).

Conclusions: Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019118755.

Keywords: Self-report; device; sedentary behaviour; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Summary risk of bias graph
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary forest plot comparing self-report and device measures of total sedentary or sitting time between single vs. multi-item vs. EMAs vs. diaries/logs, minutes/day
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Summary forest plot comparing self-report and device measures of total sedentary time or sitting time across self-report recall periods
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Intraclass correlation coefficients between repeated self-report measures
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):123–132. doi: 10.7326/M14-1651. - DOI - PubMed
    1. LeBlanc AG, Gunnell KE, Prince SA, Saunders TJ, Barnes JD, Chaput J-P. The ubiquity of the screen: an overview of the risks and benefits of screen time in our modern world. Transl J Am Coll Sports Med. 2017;2(17):104–113.
    1. Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN)–terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ekelund U, Steene-Johannessen J, Brown WJ, Fagerland MW, Owen N, Powell KE, et al. Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? A harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1302–1310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30370-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Recommended levels of physical activity for adults aged 18 - 64 years 2011 [Available from: https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/.

Publication types

Grants and funding