OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the "Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity" (SQUASH) and the "Injuries and Physical Activity in the Netherlands" questionnaire ("Ongevallen en Bewegen in Nederland," OBiN) were valid in assessing adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Participants (N=187) aged 20-69 years were categorized as "inactive," "semiactive," or "norm-active" according to the Dutch PA, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), and the combined guideline (adhering to either or both of two other guidelines) by the questionnaires and a combined heart rate monitor and accelerometer (Actiheart). Percentage of exact agreement and maximum disagreement (difference of two categories) for the categorization between questionnaires and Actiheart was calculated. RESULTS: The SQUASH had a significant higher agreement than the OBiN for the Dutch PA (SQUASH: 78%, OBiN: 46%; P<0.01) and combined guideline (SQUASH: 84%, OBiN: 55%; P<0.01). Both questionnaires had a low agreement regarding the ACSM guideline (SQUASH: 37%, OBiN: 34%; P=0.45). The SQUASH had a significant higher maximum disagreement than the OBiN for this guideline (SQUASH: 19.8%, OBiN 8%; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The SQUASH was a more valid measure than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch PA and the combined guideline. Both questionnaires failed to correctly categorize adults according to the ACSM guideline.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the "Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity" (SQUASH) and the "Injuries and Physical Activity in the Netherlands" questionnaire ("Ongevallen en Bewegen in Nederland," OBiN) were valid in assessing adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Participants (N=187) aged 20-69 years were categorized as "inactive," "semiactive," or "norm-active" according to the Dutch PA, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), and the combined guideline (adhering to either or both of two other guidelines) by the questionnaires and a combined heart rate monitor and accelerometer (Actiheart). Percentage of exact agreement and maximum disagreement (difference of two categories) for the categorization between questionnaires and Actiheart was calculated. RESULTS: The SQUASH had a significant higher agreement than the OBiN for the Dutch PA (SQUASH: 78%, OBiN: 46%; P<0.01) and combined guideline (SQUASH: 84%, OBiN: 55%; P<0.01). Both questionnaires had a low agreement regarding the ACSM guideline (SQUASH: 37%, OBiN: 34%; P=0.45). The SQUASH had a significant higher maximum disagreement than the OBiN for this guideline (SQUASH: 19.8%, OBiN 8%; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: The SQUASH was a more valid measure than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch PA and the combined guideline. Both questionnaires failed to correctly categorize adults according to the ACSM guideline.
Authors: Oluwole O Awosika; Marco Sandrini; Rita Volochayev; Ryan M Thompson; Nathan Fishman; Tianxia Wu; Mary Kay Floeter; Mark Hallett; Leonardo G Cohen Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Renée de Mutsert; Martin den Heijer; Ton Johannes Rabelink; Johannes Willem Adriaan Smit; Johannes Anthonius Romijn; Johan Wouter Jukema; Albert de Roos; Christa Maria Cobbaert; Margreet Kloppenburg; Saskia le Cessie; Saskia Middeldorp; Frits Richard Rosendaal Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-11 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Moniek van Zutphen; Hendriek C Boshuizen; Marlou-Floor Kenkhuis; Evertine Wesselink; Anne J M R Geijsen; Johannes H W de Wilt; Henk K van Halteren; Ernst Jan Spillenaar Bilgen; Eric T P Keulen; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Stéphanie O Breukink; Martijn J L Bours; Dieuwertje E Kok; Renate M Winkels; Matty P Weijenberg; Ellen Kampman; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Adriaan Penson; Sylvia van Deuren; Ewald Bronkhorst; Ellen Keizer; Tom Heskes; Marieke J H Coenen; Judith G M Rosmalen; Wim J E Tissing; Helena J H van der Pal; Andrica C H de Vries; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Sebastian Neggers; Birgitta A B Versluys; Marloes Louwerens; Margriet van der Heiden-van der Loo; Saskia M F Pluijm; Martha Grootenhuis; Nicole Blijlevens; Leontien C M Kremer; Eline van Dulmen-den Broeder; Hans Knoop; Jacqueline Loonen Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Froukje Vanweert; Sebastiaan C Boone; Bram Brouwers; Dennis O Mook-Kanamori; Renée de Mutsert; Frits R Rosendaal; Hildo J Lamb; Vera B Schrauwen-Hinderling; Patrick Schrauwen; Matthijs K C Hesselink; Esther Phielix Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2021-05-02 Impact factor: 5.551
Authors: Jeroen S L de Munter; Charles Agyemang; Lizzy M Brewster; Karien Stronks; Irene G M van Valkengoed Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-09-21 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Moniek van Zutphen; Fränzel J B van Duijnhoven; Evertine Wesselink; Ruud W M Schrauwen; Ewout A Kouwenhoven; Henk K van Halteren; Johannes H W de Wilt; Renate M Winkels; Dieuwertje E Kok; Hendriek C Boshuizen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Emma L Healey; Kelli D Allen; Kim Bennell; Jocelyn L Bowden; Jonathan G Quicke; Robert Smith Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 5.178