BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate self-reported physical activity of young adults using 1-week and 1-year recall measures with an accelerometer as the criterion measure. METHODS: Participants were a subsample (N = 121, 24 ± 1.7 yrs) from a large longitudinal cohort study. Participants completed a detailed 1-year physical activity recall, wore an accelerometer for 1 week and then completed a brief 1-week physical activity recall when they returned the accelerometer. RESULTS: Mean values for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from the 3 instruments were 3.2, 2.2, and 13.7 hours/wk for the accelerometer, 1-week recall, and 1-year recall, respectively (all different from each other, P < .001). Spearman correlations for moderate, vigorous, and MVPA between the accelerometer and the 1-week recall (0.30, 0.50, and 0.40, respectively) and the 1-year recall (0.31, 0.42, and 0.44, respectively) demonstrated adequate validity. CONCLUSIONS: Both recall instruments may be used for ranking physical activity at the group level. At the individual level, the 1-week recall performed much better in terms of absolute value of physical activity. The 1-year recall overestimated total physical activity but additional research is needed to fully test its validity.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate self-reported physical activity of young adults using 1-week and 1-year recall measures with an accelerometer as the criterion measure. METHODS:Participants were a subsample (N = 121, 24 ± 1.7 yrs) from a large longitudinal cohort study. Participants completed a detailed 1-year physical activity recall, wore an accelerometer for 1 week and then completed a brief 1-week physical activity recall when they returned the accelerometer. RESULTS: Mean values for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) from the 3 instruments were 3.2, 2.2, and 13.7 hours/wk for the accelerometer, 1-week recall, and 1-year recall, respectively (all different from each other, P < .001). Spearman correlations for moderate, vigorous, and MVPA between the accelerometer and the 1-week recall (0.30, 0.50, and 0.40, respectively) and the 1-year recall (0.31, 0.42, and 0.44, respectively) demonstrated adequate validity. CONCLUSIONS: Both recall instruments may be used for ranking physical activity at the group level. At the individual level, the 1-week recall performed much better in terms of absolute value of physical activity. The 1-year recall overestimated total physical activity but additional research is needed to fully test its validity.
Authors: A M Kriska; W C Knowler; R E LaPorte; A L Drash; R R Wing; S N Blair; P H Bennett; L H Kuller Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 1990-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: S L Gortmaker; L W Cheung; K E Peterson; G Chomitz; J H Cradle; H Dart; M K Fox; R B Bullock; A M Sobol; G Colditz; A E Field; N Laird Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 1999-09
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Calum Mattocks; Andy Ness; Sam Leary; Kate Tilling; Stephen N Blair; Julian Shield; Kevin Deere; Joanne Saunders; Joanne Kirkby; George Davey Smith; Jonathan Wells; Nicholas Wareham; John Reilly; Chris Riddoch Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2008
Authors: Andrea B Goldschmidt; Melanie M Wall; Tse-Hwei J Choo; E Whitney Evans; Elissa Jelalian; Nicole Larson; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jerica M Berge; Amanda Trofholz; Allan D Tate; Maureen Beebe; Angela Fertig; Michael H Miner; Scott Crow; Kathleen A Culhane-Pera; Shannon Pergament; Dianne Neumark-Sztainer Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 2.226