K Milton1, F C Bull, A Bauman. 1. British Heart Foundation National Centre for Physical Activity and Health, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. k.milton@lboro.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a new single-item physical activity screening tool, suitable for assessing respondents' eligibility for behaviour change interventions. DESIGN: Two single-item assessment tools were developed, one using a "past week" recall period, the other using a "past month" recall period. A quota sampling system was used to recruit 480 adults from across England, Scotland and Wales. Half the sample completed the past-week question and half completed the past-month version. Test-retest reliability was assessed over a 2- to 5-day period. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire and the UK Active People Survey. All surveys were completed via telephone interviews. RESULTS: Both versions of the single-item instrument demonstrated strong reproducibility (r=0.72-0.82), using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The past-week recall question showed strong agreement in the classification of respondents meeting the current physical activity recommendation (kappa=0.63, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72).Concurrent validity over the past week compared to the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire was modest (r=0.53) and slightly weaker for the past month compared to the Active People Survey (r=0.33-0.48). CONCLUSION: Both versions of the new single-item measure performed as well as other short physical activity tools in terms of reliability and concurrent validity. Criterion validity testing of the single-item measure is recommended to establish its ability to assess objectively measured physical activity levels. In addition, further research to assess the responsiveness of the single-item measure in detecting changes in physical activity will inform its usefulness in programme evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a new single-item physical activity screening tool, suitable for assessing respondents' eligibility for behaviour change interventions. DESIGN: Two single-item assessment tools were developed, one using a "past week" recall period, the other using a "past month" recall period. A quota sampling system was used to recruit 480 adults from across England, Scotland and Wales. Half the sample completed the past-week question and half completed the past-month version. Test-retest reliability was assessed over a 2- to 5-day period. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire and the UK Active People Survey. All surveys were completed via telephone interviews. RESULTS: Both versions of the single-item instrument demonstrated strong reproducibility (r=0.72-0.82), using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The past-week recall question showed strong agreement in the classification of respondents meeting the current physical activity recommendation (kappa=0.63, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.72).Concurrent validity over the past week compared to the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire was modest (r=0.53) and slightly weaker for the past month compared to the Active People Survey (r=0.33-0.48). CONCLUSION: Both versions of the new single-item measure performed as well as other short physical activity tools in terms of reliability and concurrent validity. Criterion validity testing of the single-item measure is recommended to establish its ability to assess objectively measured physical activity levels. In addition, further research to assess the responsiveness of the single-item measure in detecting changes in physical activity will inform its usefulness in programme evaluation.
Authors: Rikki Cannioto; Michael J LaMonte; Harvey A Risch; Chi-Chen Hong; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Kevin H Eng; J Brian Szender; Jenny Chang-Claude; Barbara Schmalfeldt; Ruediger Klapdor; Emily Gower; Albina N Minlikeeva; Gary R Zirpoli; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; Daniel Cramer; Jennifer A Doherty; Robert P Edwards; Brooke L Fridley; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Estrid Hogdall; Satoyo Hosono; Allan Jensen; Susan Jordan; Susanne K Kjaer; Keitaro Matsuo; Roberta B Ness; Catherine M Olsen; Sara H Olson; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Malcolm C Pike; Mary Anne Rossing; Elizabeth A Szamreta; Pamela J Thompson; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Robert A Vierkant; Penelope M Webb; Nicolas Wentzensen; Kristine G Wicklund; Stacey J Winham; Anna H Wu; Francesmary Modugno; Joellen M Schildkraut; Kathryn L Terry; Linda E Kelemen; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Lauren J Frensham; Dorota M Zarnowiecki; Gaynor Parfitt; Sharron King; James Dollman Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 3.603