Ulf Ekelund1, Grant Tomkinson, Neil Armstrong. 1. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrookes Hospital, Box 285, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK. ulf.ekelund@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this review is to summarise issues surrounding the measurement of physical activity (PA) by self-report and accelerometry in youth (2-18 years old). Current levels and temporal trends in PA and sport participation and the effect of assessment method on data interpretation will be summarised. METHODS: Relevant papers were extracted from a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and personal databases. Additional papers were extracted from reference lists of recently published reviews. RESULTS: The criterion validity (direct comparison with an objective method) of self-reported instruments is low to moderate, with correlation coefficients generally between 0.3 and 0.4. Self-report instruments overestimate the intensity and duration of PA and sport participation. The interpretation of PA data from accelerometry is a challenge, and specific issues include the definition of intensity thresholds and the influence of age on intensity thresholds. Recent data on self-reported PA in youth suggest that between 30% and 40% are sufficiently active. Prevalence values for sufficiently active youth measured by accelerometry range between 1% and 100%, depending on the intensity thresholds used. Sport participation is likely to contribute to higher levels of PA. The available evidence does not support the notion that PA levels and sport participation in youth have declined in recent decades. CONCLUSION: The number of youth meeting current PA guidelines varies by assessment method and the intensity thresholds used when PA is measured by accelerometry. The available evidence does not firmly support the notion that PA in young people has declined during the last decades. It is unlikely that any self-report method is sufficiently accurate for examining cross-cultural differences and temporal trends in young people's PA and sport participation over time. Surveillance systems therefore need to strive for an international standardisation using objective measurements of PA to complement existing self-report instruments.
AIM: The aim of this review is to summarise issues surrounding the measurement of physical activity (PA) by self-report and accelerometry in youth (2-18 years old). Current levels and temporal trends in PA and sport participation and the effect of assessment method on data interpretation will be summarised. METHODS: Relevant papers were extracted from a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and personal databases. Additional papers were extracted from reference lists of recently published reviews. RESULTS: The criterion validity (direct comparison with an objective method) of self-reported instruments is low to moderate, with correlation coefficients generally between 0.3 and 0.4. Self-report instruments overestimate the intensity and duration of PA and sport participation. The interpretation of PA data from accelerometry is a challenge, and specific issues include the definition of intensity thresholds and the influence of age on intensity thresholds. Recent data on self-reported PA in youth suggest that between 30% and 40% are sufficiently active. Prevalence values for sufficiently active youth measured by accelerometry range between 1% and 100%, depending on the intensity thresholds used. Sport participation is likely to contribute to higher levels of PA. The available evidence does not support the notion that PA levels and sport participation in youth have declined in recent decades. CONCLUSION: The number of youth meeting current PA guidelines varies by assessment method and the intensity thresholds used when PA is measured by accelerometry. The available evidence does not firmly support the notion that PA in young people has declined during the last decades. It is unlikely that any self-report method is sufficiently accurate for examining cross-cultural differences and temporal trends in young people's PA and sport participation over time. Surveillance systems therefore need to strive for an international standardisation using objective measurements of PA to complement existing self-report instruments.
Authors: Nicholas R Lamoureux; John S Fitzgerald; Kevin I Norton; Todd Sabato; Mark S Tremblay; Grant R Tomkinson Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Grant R Tomkinson; Tori Kaster; Faith L Dooley; John S Fitzgerald; Madison Annandale; Katia Ferrar; Justin J Lang; Jordan J Smith Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Travis D Masterson; C Brock Kirwan; Lance E Davidson; Michael J Larson; Kathleen L Keller; S Nicole Fearnbach; Alyssa Evans; James D LeCheminant Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Daniel P Bailey; Stuart J Fairclough; Louise A Savory; Sarah J Denton; Dong Pang; Colleen S Deane; Catherine J Kerr Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2012-09-15 Impact factor: 3.183