BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important lifestyle which is often poorly assessed in epidemiological studies. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer Study-Norfolk cohort (EPIC-Norfolk), a large population-based cohort study, has developed a comprehensive questionnaire to assess activity in different domains of life aimed at assessing total energy expenditure. We report the repeatability of this instrument and its validity against repeated objective measures of fitness and energy expenditure undertaken throughout the time frame of reference of the questionnaire. METHODS: The validity of the instrument was measured in 173 individuals randomly selected from a continuing population-based cohort study. Energy expenditure was assessed by four separate episodes of 4-day heart-rate monitoring, a method previously validated against whole body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water. Cardio-respiratory fitness was assessed by four repeated measures of sub-maximum oxygen uptake. At the end of the 12-month period, participants completed the physical activity questionnaire that assesses past-year activity at home, work and in recreation. Repeatability was assessed in a separate group of 399 randomly selected participants in EPIC who completed the physical activity questionnaire twice with a 3-month interval. RESULTS: The age- and sex-adjusted correlation between the objective measure of daytime energy expenditure and the sum of recreational and occupational reported physical activity (in MET h per week) was 0.28 (P < 0.001). The reported time spent in vigorous activity was correlated with cardio-respiratory fitness (0.16, P < 0.05) and with the proportion of time when energy expenditure was more than five times basal (0.17, P < 0.05). The repeatability of the sum of recreational and occupational reported activity was high, r = 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The indices of physical activity derived from this questionnaire have levels of validity and repeatability comparable to other physical activity instruments that are used in large epidemiological studies and which have undergone such intense development and testing.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important lifestyle which is often poorly assessed in epidemiological studies. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer Study-Norfolk cohort (EPIC-Norfolk), a large population-based cohort study, has developed a comprehensive questionnaire to assess activity in different domains of life aimed at assessing total energy expenditure. We report the repeatability of this instrument and its validity against repeated objective measures of fitness and energy expenditure undertaken throughout the time frame of reference of the questionnaire. METHODS: The validity of the instrument was measured in 173 individuals randomly selected from a continuing population-based cohort study. Energy expenditure was assessed by four separate episodes of 4-day heart-rate monitoring, a method previously validated against whole body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water. Cardio-respiratory fitness was assessed by four repeated measures of sub-maximum oxygen uptake. At the end of the 12-month period, participants completed the physical activity questionnaire that assesses past-year activity at home, work and in recreation. Repeatability was assessed in a separate group of 399 randomly selected participants in EPIC who completed the physical activity questionnaire twice with a 3-month interval. RESULTS: The age- and sex-adjusted correlation between the objective measure of daytime energy expenditure and the sum of recreational and occupational reported physical activity (in MET h per week) was 0.28 (P < 0.001). The reported time spent in vigorous activity was correlated with cardio-respiratory fitness (0.16, P < 0.05) and with the proportion of time when energy expenditure was more than five times basal (0.17, P < 0.05). The repeatability of the sum of recreational and occupational reported activity was high, r = 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The indices of physical activity derived from this questionnaire have levels of validity and repeatability comparable to other physical activity instruments that are used in large epidemiological studies and which have undergone such intense development and testing.
Authors: Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Fulvio Lauretani; Stefania Bandinelli; Michael E Griswold; Marcello Maggio; Richard Semba; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Rebecca K Simmons; Esther Mf van Sluijs; Wendy Hardeman; Stephen Sutton; Simon J Griffin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-04-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Francis M Finucane; Jessica Horton; Lisa R Purslow; David B Savage; Soren Brage; Hervé Besson; Kenneth Horton; Ema De Lucia Rolfe; Alison Sleigh; Stephen J Sharp; Helen J Martin; Avan Aihie Sayer; Cyrus Cooper; Ulf Ekelund; Simon J Griffin; Nicholas J Wareham Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 2.763
Authors: Alison M McMinn; Esther Mf van Sluijs; Nicholas C Harvey; Cyrus Cooper; Hazel M Inskip; Keith M Godfrey; Simon J Griffin Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Tuomas O Kilpeläinen; Sheila A Bingham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Nicholas J Wareham; Ruth J F Loos Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2009-06-15 Impact factor: 6.150