Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Análisis de fiabilidad y validez de tres cuestionarios de autoinforme para valorar la actividad física realizada por adolescentes españoles Translated title: Analysis of the reliability and validity of three self-report questionnaires to assess physical activity among Spanish adolescents

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objetivo: Analizar la fiabilidad y la validez de los cuestionarios Weekly Activity Checklist (WAC), One Week Recall (OWR) y Godin-Shephard Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) en población adolescente. Método: Setenta y ocho adolescentes portaron un podómetro durante una semana, completaron los cuestionarios al término de la misma y realizaron una prueba de estimación de consumo máximo de oxígeno (VO2max). Se realizó un análisis factorial para determinar la fiabilidad de los cuestionarios. Su validez convergente se obtuvo mediante la comparación entre los resultados obtenidos en el cuestionario, la actividad física cuantificada por el podómetro y el VO2max reportado. Resultados: Se encontró una consistencia interna débil para los cuestionarios WAC (alpha = 0,59-0,78), OWR (alpha = 0,53-0,73) y GLTEQ (alpha = 0,60). Se encontraron correlaciones estadísticamente significativas al comparar los valores obtenidos por el podómetro y los cuestionarios, moderadas para el WAC (r = 0,69; p <0,01) y el OWR (r = 0,42; p <0,01), y baja para el GLTEQ (r = 0,36; p = 0,01). El VO2max estimado mostró una baja asociación con los resultados del WAC (r = 0,30; p <0,05) y del OWR (r = 0,29; p <0,05). Al clasificar a los participantes como activos o inactivos, la concordancia con el podómetro fue moderada para el WAC (k = 0,46) y el OWR (r = 0,44), y leve para el GLTEQ (r = 0,20). Conclusiones: De los cuestionarios analizados, el WAC es el que mejor comportamiento psicométrico parece tener, ya que es el único que presenta una validez convergente respetable a la vez que comparte una baja fiabilidad con el OWR y el GLTEQ.

          Translated abstract

          Objective: To analyse the reliability and validity of the Weekly Activity Checklist (WAC), the One Week Recall (OWR), and the Godin-Shephard Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) in Spanish adolescents. Methods: A total of 78 adolescents wore a pedometer for one week, filled out the questionnaires at the end of this period and underwent a test to estimate their maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). The reliability of the questionnaires was determined by means of a factor analysis. Convergent validity was obtained by comparing the questionnaires' scores against the amount of physical activity quantified by the pedometer and the VO2max reported. Results: The questionnaires showed a weak internal consistency (WAC: alpha = 0.59-0.78; OWR: alpha = 0.53-0.73; GLTEQ: alpha = 0.60). Moderate statistically significant correlations were found between the pedometer and the WAC (r = 0.69; p <0.01) and the OWR (r = 0.42; p <0.01), while a low statistically significant correlation was found for the GLTEQ (r = 0.36; p = 0.01). The estimated VO2max showed a low level of association with the WAC results (r = 0.30; p <0.05), and the OWR results (r = 0.29; p <0.05). When classifying the participants as active or inactive, the level of agreement with the pedometer was moderate for the WAC (k = 0.46) and the OWR (r = 0.44), and slight for the GLTEQ (r = 0.20). Conclusion: Of the three questionnaires analysed, the WAC showed the best psychometric performance as it was the only one with respectable convergent validity, while sharing low reliability with the OWR and the GLTEQ.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness?

          Regular aerobic physical activity (PA) increases exercise capacity and physical fitness (PF), which can lead to many health benefits. Accurate quantification of PA and PF becomes essential in terms of health outcome and effectiveness of intervention programmes. In this manuscript we present a review regarding the assessment of physical activity and fitness. Three types of PA assessment methods can be distinguished: criterion methods, objective methods and subjective methods. Criterion methods like doubly labelled water, indirect calorimetry and direct observation are the most reliable and valid measurements against which all other PA assessments methods should be validated, but they also hold important drawbacks. Objective PA assessment methods include activity monitors (pedometers and accelerometers) and heart rate monitoring. Finally, questionnaires and activity diaries are considered subjective methods. For the assessment of PF, we distinguish field tests and laboratory tests. The Eurofit for Adults is a test battery that is designed to assess health-related fitness of individuals, communities, sub-populations and populations. It is mainly used for evaluating the morphological component, the muscular component, the motor component and the cardio-respiratory component. In the laboratory, exercise capacity is preferentially assessed through maximal incremental exercise testing. Cardio-pulmonary exercise testing is a well-established procedure that provides a wealth of clinically diagnostic and prognostic information. The peak oxygen uptake is the gold standard in the assessment of exercise tolerance. When maximal exercise is contraindicated or not achievable, the VAT or the submaximal slopes provide reasonable alternatives.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pedometer-measured physical activity patterns of youth: a 13-country review.

            Insufficient physical activity among young people aged 5-18 years is a global public health issue, with considerable disparities among countries. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies reporting pedometer daily steps (steps x day(-1)) in order to compile comparative, global cross-sectional data on youth physical activity patterns. Articles were included if they were in English, published by April 2009, and reported steps x day(-1) for boys and girls, separately, and reported steps x day(-1) for age groupings of no more than 4 years (e.g., 5-8 years) or combined no more than three grade levels (e.g., third- to fifth-graders). Studies could have been intervention-based but had to have reported baseline steps x day(-1), which would reflect unadulterated physical activity steps x day(-1) estimates. Inverse variance weighted estimates (steps x day(-1w)) were calculated for each country, and random effects models were estimated. Analyses were conducted in May and June 2009. Forty-three studies, representing young people in 13 countries (N=14,200), were included. The majority of studies were from the U.S. (17/43). Overall, there was considerable variation within and among countries in steps x day(-1w). Boys and girls from European and Western Pacific regions had significantly more steps x day(-1w) than young people from the U.S. and Canada. Significantly lower steps x day(-1w) estimates for girls were observed for studies that combined measured steps x day(-1) for weekdays and weekend days, in comparison to weekdays only. Limited sample sizes and non-population-based data preclude definitive statements regarding projected steps x day(-1) within countries. Nevertheless, these findings provide preliminary information for policymakers and researchers on the extent of the disparities among countries in the physical activity patterns of young people. Copyright 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The validation of physical activity instruments for measuring energy expenditure: problems and pitfalls.

              To review and categorize the problems associated with undertaking physical activity validation studies and to construct a checklist against which any study could be compared. The studies reviewed demonstrated problems in defining the dimension of physical activity that is of interest and in the selection of an appropriate comparison technique. Ideally this should be closely related to the true exposure of interest and assess that exposure objectively and without correlated error from the study instrument in question. In many studies inappropriate comparison methods have been chosen which do not measure the true underlying exposure and which are likely to have correlated error. The choice of study populations, the frame of reference of the exposure measurement and the use of appropriate statistical methods are also problematic areas. There is no ideal measurement instrument or validation study design that is suitable for all situations. However, the checklist in this paper provides a means whereby the appropriateness of studies already undertaken or at the planning stage can be assessed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                gs
                Gaceta Sanitaria
                Gac Sanit
                Ediciones Doyma, S.L. (Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain )
                0213-9111
                October 2016
                : 30
                : 5
                : 333-338
                Affiliations
                Vigo orgnameUniversidad de Vigo orgdiv1Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación y del Deporte España
                Article
                S0213-91112016000500003
                10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.04.009

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 33, Pages: 6
                Product
                Product Information: website

                Comments

                Comment on this article