OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise studies examining self-administered physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) for the elderly. This article is one of a group of four articles in Sports Medicine on the content and measurement properties of PAQs. LITERATURE SEARCH METHODOLOGY: Searches in PubMed, EMBASE and SportDiscu (until May 2009) on self-administered PAQ. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) the study examined (at least one of) the measurement properties of a self-administered PAQ; (ii) the questionnaire aimed to measure physical activity (PA) in older people; (iii) the average age of the study population was >55 years; (iv) the article was written in English. We excluded PA interviews, diaries and studies that evaluated the measurement properties of a self-administered PAQ in a specific population, such as patients. We used a standard checklist (qualitative attributes and measurement properties of PA questionnaires [QAPAQ]) for appraising the measurement properties of PAQs. FINDINGS: Eighteen articles on 13 PAQs were reviewed, including 16 reliability analyses and 25 validity analyses (of which 15 were on construct validity, seven on health/functioning associations, two on known-groups validity and one on responsiveness). Many studies suffered from methodological flaws, e.g. too small sample size or inadequate time interval between test and retest. Three PAQs received a positive rating on reliability: IPAQ-C (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Chinese), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > or = 0.81; WHI-PAQ (Women's Health Initiative-PAQ), ICC = 0.76; and PASE (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly), Pearson correlation coefficient (r) = 0.84. However, PASE was negatively rated on reliability in another study (ICC = 0.65). One PAQ received a positive rating on construct validity: PASE against Mini-Logger (r > 0.52), but PASE was negatively rated in another study against accelerometer and another PAQ, Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.17 and 0.48, respectively. Three of the 13 PAQs were tested for health/functioning associations and all three were positively rated in some categories of PA in many studies (r > 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Even though several studies showed an association between the tested PAQ and health/functioning variables, the knowledge about reliability and construct validity of self-administrated PAQs for older adults is still scarce and more high-quality validation studies are needed.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and appraise studies examining self-administered physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) for the elderly. This article is one of a group of four articles in Sports Medicine on the content and measurement properties of PAQs. LITERATURE SEARCH METHODOLOGY: Searches in PubMed, EMBASE and SportDiscu (until May 2009) on self-administered PAQ. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) the study examined (at least one of) the measurement properties of a self-administered PAQ; (ii) the questionnaire aimed to measure physical activity (PA) in older people; (iii) the average age of the study population was >55 years; (iv) the article was written in English. We excluded PA interviews, diaries and studies that evaluated the measurement properties of a self-administered PAQ in a specific population, such as patients. We used a standard checklist (qualitative attributes and measurement properties of PA questionnaires [QAPAQ]) for appraising the measurement properties of PAQs. FINDINGS: Eighteen articles on 13 PAQs were reviewed, including 16 reliability analyses and 25 validity analyses (of which 15 were on construct validity, seven on health/functioning associations, two on known-groups validity and one on responsiveness). Many studies suffered from methodological flaws, e.g. too small sample size or inadequate time interval between test and retest. Three PAQs received a positive rating on reliability: IPAQ-C (International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Chinese), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) > or = 0.81; WHI-PAQ (Women's Health Initiative-PAQ), ICC = 0.76; and PASE (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly), Pearson correlation coefficient (r) = 0.84. However, PASE was negatively rated on reliability in another study (ICC = 0.65). One PAQ received a positive rating on construct validity: PASE against Mini-Logger (r > 0.52), but PASE was negatively rated in another study against accelerometer and another PAQ, Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.17 and 0.48, respectively. Three of the 13 PAQs were tested for health/functioning associations and all three were positively rated in some categories of PA in many studies (r > 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Even though several studies showed an association between the tested PAQ and health/functioning variables, the knowledge about reliability and construct validity of self-administrated PAQs for older adults is still scarce and more high-quality validation studies are needed.
Authors: Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Klaus Hauer; Clemens Becker; Marc Bonnefoy; Rachel A Nakash; Dawn A Skelton; Sarah E Lamb Journal: J Aging Phys Act Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 1.961
Authors: Wojtek J Chodzko-Zajko; David N Proctor; Maria A Fiatarone Singh; Christopher T Minson; Claudio R Nigg; George J Salem; James S Skinner Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Anne E Cust; Ben J Smith; Josephine Chau; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Christine M Friedenreich; Bruce K Armstrong; Adrian Bauman Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2008-06-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Gregory J Welk; Youngwon Kim; Bryan Stanfill; David A Osthus; Miguel A Calabro; Sarah M Nusser; Alicia Carriquiry Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Markus Wallwiener; Felix Heindl; Sara Y Brucker; Florin-Andrei Taran; Andreas Hartkopf; Friedrich Overkamp; Hans-Christian Kolberg; Peyman Hadji; Hans Tesch; Johannes Ettl; Michael P Lux; Claudia Rauh; Simon Blum; Naiba Nabieva; Tobias F Brodkorb; Cornelia Faschingbauer; Hanna Langemann; Carla Schulmeyer; Bernhard Volz; Matthias Rübner; Diana Lüftner; Volkmar Müller; Erik Belleville; Wolfgang Janni; Tanja N Fehm; Diethelm Wallwiener; Thomas Ganslandt; Matthias W Beckmann; Andreas Schneeweiss; Peter A Fasching; Paul Gass Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Myles W O'Brien; Jarrett A Johns; Tristan W Dorey; Ryan J Frayne; Jonathon R Fowles; Said Mekary; Derek S Kimmerly Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2019-10-12 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: David Martinez-Gomez; Stefania Bandinelli; Vieri Del-Panta; Kushang V Patel; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Peggy M Cawthon; Terri L Blackwell; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud; Thuy-Tien Dam; Stephanie L Harrison; Kathy Wilt Peters; Dawn C Mackey Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.053