Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.

Methods: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.

Results: The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.

Conclusion: Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.

Registration number: CRD42018105994.

Keywords: Measurement; Reliability; Sedentary behaviour; Self-report; Sitting; Validity.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of the inclusion of studies

Fig. 2

Overview of construct validity (a) and test retest reliability (b). 1 EEPAQ, Lopez-Rodriguez et al. 2017; 2 GPAQ, Chu et al. 2018; 3 GPAQ, Cleland et al. 2014; 4 GPAQ, Kastelic et al. 2019; 5 GPAQ, Laeremens et al. 2017; 6 GPAQ, Metcalf et al. 2018; 7 GPAQ, Rudolf et al. 2020; 8 GPAQ, Wanner et al. 2017; 9 IPAQ (short), Craig et al. 2003; 10 IPAQ (short), Prince et al. 2018; 11 IPAQ (short), Rosenberg et al. 2008; 12 Modified MOSPA-Q, Chau et al. 2012; 13 PPAQ, Simpson et al. 2015; 14 SED-GIH,; 15 SQ, Aguilar-Farias et al. 2015; 16 SQ, Clemes et al. 2012; 17 TASST Single item total times, Dontje et al. 2018; 18 TASST TV time, Dontje et al. 2019; 19 TASST Single item total times, Chastin et al. 2018; 20 TASST Single item proportion, Chastin et al. 2018; 21 TASST TV time, Chastin et al. 2018; 22 T-SQ, Kozey-Keadle et al. 2012; 23 TV-Q, Kozey-Keadle et al. 2012; 24 YPAS, Gennuso et al. 2015; 25 Single item proportion (3 months), Gao et al. 2017; 26 Single item proportion (1 day), Gao et al. 2017; 27 Gupta et al. 2017 [29]; 28 AQuAA, Chinpaw et al. 2009; 29 Cancer Prevention Study-3 Sedentary Time Survey, Rees-Punia et al. 2018; 30 CHAMPS, Hekler et al. 2012; 31 CHAMPS, Gennuso et al. 2017; 32 FPACQ, Matton et al. 2007; 33 FPACQ, Scheers et al. 2012; 34 IPAQ (long), Chastin et al. 2014; 35 IPAQ (long), Chau et al. 2011; 36 IPAQ (long), Cleland et al. 2018; 37 IPAQ (long), Craig et al. 2003; 38 IPAQ (long), Rosenberg et al. 2008; 39 IPAQ (long), Ruan et al. 2018; 40 IPAQ (long), Wanner et al. 2016; 41 OPAQ, Reis et al. 2005; 42 OSPAQ, Chau et al. 2012; 43 OSPAQ, Jancey et al. 2014; 44 OSPAQ, Pedersen et al. 2016; 45 OSPAQ, van Nassau et al. 2015; 46 PAS2, Pedersen et al. 2017; 47 PASBAQ, Scholes et al. 2014; 48 PASB-Q total SB, Fowles et al. 2017; 49 PASB-Q breaks, Fowles et al. 2017; 50 PAST-U, Clark et al. 2016; 51 PAT Survey, Yi et al. 2015; 52 RPAQ, Besson at el. 2010; 53 RPAQ, Golubic et al. 2014; 54 Regicor Short Physical Activity Questionnaire [47] Molina et al. 2017; 55 SCCS PAQ, Buchowski et al. 2012; 56 SITBRQ bout frequency, Pedisic et al. 2014; 57 SITBRQ bout duration, Pedisic et al. 2014; 58 Stand Up For Your Health Questionnaire, Gardiner et al. 2011; 59 STAQ, Mensah et al. 2016; 60 TASST, Sum of domains, Dontje et al. 2018; 61 TASST Sum of domains, Chastin et al. 2018; 62 TASST Patterns, Chastin et al. 2018; 63 Survey of older adults’ sedentary time, Gennuso et al. 2016; 64 Web-based physical activity questionnaire Active-Q, Bonn et al. 2015; 65 WSWQ Time method, Matsoe et al. 2016; 66 WSWQ Percentage method, Matsoe et al. 2016; 67 Sedentary time, Clark et al. 2011; 68 Sedentary breaks, Clark et al. 2011; 69 Jefferis et al. 2016; 70 Lagersted-Olsen et al. 2014; 71 Mielke et al. 2020; 72 Sitting time, Sudholz et al. 2017; 73 Sitting breaks, Sudholz et al. 2017; 74 ASBQ, Chu et al. 2018; 75 D-SQ, Kozey-Keadle et al. 2012; 76 MPAQ, Anjana et al. 2015; 77 MSTQ, Whitfield et al. 2013; 78 PAFQ sitting time, Verhoog et al. 2019; 79 PAFQ sitting proportion, Verhoog et al. 2019; 80 PAST-WEEK-U, Moulin et al. 2020; 81 NIGHTLY-WEEK-U, Moulin et al. 2020; 82 SBQ, Kastelic et al. 2019; 83 SBQ, Prince et al. 2018; 84 SBQ, Rosenberg et al. 2010; 85 SIT-Q, Lynch et al. 2014; 86 SIT-Q-7d, Busschaert et al. 2015; 87 SIT-Q-7d, Wijndeale et al.2014; 88 STAR-Q, Csizmadi et al. 2014; 89 TASST Chastin et al. 2018; 90 WSQ, Chau et al. 2011; 91 WSQ, van Nassau et al. 2015; 92 WSQ, Toledo et al. 2019; 93 Clark et al. 2015; 94 Clemes et al. 2012; 95 Ishii et al. 2018; 96 Marshall et al. 2010; 97 Van Cauwenberg et al. 2014; 98 Visser et al. 2013 [64]; 99 7-day SLIPA Log, Barwais et al. 2014; 100 BAR, Hart et al. 2011; 101 BeWell24 Self-Monitoring App, Toledo et al. 2017; 102 cpar24, Kohler et al. 2017; 103 EMA, Knell et al. 2017; 104 MARCA, Aguilar-Farias et al. 2015; 105 MARCA, Gomersall et al. 2015; 106 PAMS, Kim et al. 2017; 107 Time Use Survey, van der Ploeg et al. 2014; 108 Updated PDR, Matthews et al. 2013. The studies within each category are place randomly to avoid overlap when they are aligned. An ICC > 0.90 was considered as excellent, ICC between 0.75–0.90 was considered as good, ICC between 0.50–0.75 as moderate and > 0.50 as poor