OBJECTIVE: To identify methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour at the workplace and review the validity and reliability of these measures. METHODS: Databases were searched for relevant published articles including MEDLINE, SPORT Discus, ProQuest and Google Scholar. Keywords used were physical-activity, workplace, sedentary-behaviour, measurement and questionnaire. Studies included were original, written in English, published between 1990 and 2009, and focused on validated physical activity and sedentary behaviour measures at work. Eleven papers were identified in which three used criterion standards, three objective measures, and five subjective measures. RESULTS: The most common method of data collection was through self-report, surveys or questionnaires. Physical activity measured with motion sensors, ranged from 4,422 to 10,334 steps/day (pedometers) and sedentary time ranged from 1.8 to 6 hours/day (h/d) (accelerometers). Self-report measures provided information relevant to the perception of physical activity at work (∼ 0.5 h/d), sitting time (> 3 h/d) and calculated energy expenditure (< 800 kcal/d). CONCLUSION: Physical activity levels at work were low while sedentary behaviour was high. This was largely a function of occupation (white-collar vs. blue-collar). None of the studies assessed validity or reliability of measures used however, instruments as assessed by others showed moderate to strong validity and reliability values.
OBJECTIVE: To identify methods used to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviour at the workplace and review the validity and reliability of these measures. METHODS: Databases were searched for relevant published articles including MEDLINE, SPORT Discus, ProQuest and Google Scholar. Keywords used were physical-activity, workplace, sedentary-behaviour, measurement and questionnaire. Studies included were original, written in English, published between 1990 and 2009, and focused on validated physical activity and sedentary behaviour measures at work. Eleven papers were identified in which three used criterion standards, three objective measures, and five subjective measures. RESULTS: The most common method of data collection was through self-report, surveys or questionnaires. Physical activity measured with motion sensors, ranged from 4,422 to 10,334 steps/day (pedometers) and sedentary time ranged from 1.8 to 6 hours/day (h/d) (accelerometers). Self-report measures provided information relevant to the perception of physical activity at work (∼ 0.5 h/d), sitting time (> 3 h/d) and calculated energy expenditure (< 800 kcal/d). CONCLUSION: Physical activity levels at work were low while sedentary behaviour was high. This was largely a function of occupation (white-collar vs. blue-collar). None of the studies assessed validity or reliability of measures used however, instruments as assessed by others showed moderate to strong validity and reliability values.
Authors: Katharina Wick; Oliver Faude; Susanne Schwager; Lukas Zahner; Lars Donath Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Louisa G Sylvia; Emily E Bernstein; Jane L Hubbard; Leigh Keating; Ellen J Anderson Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Stephanie A Prince; Christie A Cole; Kara A Nerenberg; Swapnil Hiremath; Heather E Tulloch; J George Fodor; Agnieszka Szczotka; Lisa A McDonnell; Kerri-Anne Mullen; Andrew L Pipe; Robert D Reid Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-14
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Stephanie A Prince; Christie A Cole; J George Fodor; Swapnil Hiremath; Kerri-Anne Mullen; Heather E Tulloch; Erica Wright; Robert D Reid Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2014-12-19
Authors: Jonas Mundwiler; Ulla Schüpbach; Thomas Dieterle; Jörg Daniel Leuppi; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; David Paul Wolfer; David Miedinger; Stefanie Brighenti-Zogg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paula van Dommelen; Jennifer K Coffeng; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Allard J van der Beek; Cécile R L Boot; Ingrid J M Hendriksen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jasmin Hutchinson; Samuel Headley; Tracey Matthews; Greg Spicer; Kristen Dempsey; Sarah Wooley; Xanne Janssen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.390