OBJECTIVE: The Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT) and the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) are valid and reliable assessment tools to identify "inactive" patients in primary care. No similar tools exist for the Spanish population. The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Catalan and Spanish versions (CBPAAT-CGPPAQ; CBPAAT-EGPPAQ) of such tools. DESIGN: Validation study of the linguistic and cultural adaptation of two questionnaires into Catalan/Spanish. SETTING: Centres of Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: The load for administering the questionnaires was evaluated by 7 general practitioners and 44 patients. Construct validity and reliability was assessed in 105 patients (58 years old±20; 37% men) without any contraindication for physical activity (PA). MAIN VARIABLES: After carrying out the translation and back-translation, construct validity was assessed against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ short form). Reliability was assessed administering the questionnaires again within 14 to 28 days. RESULTS: The validity of the CBPAAT-EBPAAT showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 80% and 83% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was also good, correctly classifying over 86% and 88% of the cases. The validity of the CGPPAQ-EGPPAQ showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 70% and 60% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was good, correctly classifying over 82% and 72% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The CBPAAT-CGPPAQ and EBPAAT-EGPPAQ are valid instruments to identify "inactive" patients that should receive advice on PA.
OBJECTIVE: The Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT) and the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) are valid and reliable assessment tools to identify "inactive" patients in primary care. No similar tools exist for the Spanish population. The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Catalan and Spanish versions (CBPAAT-CGPPAQ; CBPAAT-EGPPAQ) of such tools. DESIGN: Validation study of the linguistic and cultural adaptation of two questionnaires into Catalan/Spanish. SETTING: Centres of Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: The load for administering the questionnaires was evaluated by 7 general practitioners and 44 patients. Construct validity and reliability was assessed in 105 patients (58 years old±20; 37% men) without any contraindication for physical activity (PA). MAIN VARIABLES: After carrying out the translation and back-translation, construct validity was assessed against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ short form). Reliability was assessed administering the questionnaires again within 14 to 28 days. RESULTS: The validity of the CBPAAT-EBPAAT showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 80% and 83% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was also good, correctly classifying over 86% and 88% of the cases. The validity of the CGPPAQ-EGPPAQ showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 70% and 60% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was good, correctly classifying over 82% and 72% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The CBPAAT-CGPPAQ and EBPAAT-EGPPAQ are valid instruments to identify "inactive" patients that should receive advice on PA.
Authors: A Rütten; H Ziemainz; F Schena; T Stahl; M Stiggelbout; Y Vanden Auweele; A Vuillemin; J Welshman Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Cora L Craig; Alison L Marshall; Michael Sjöström; Adrian E Bauman; Michael L Booth; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael Pratt; Ulf Ekelund; Agneta Yngve; James F Sallis; Pekka Oja Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Nicholas J Wareham; Rupert W Jakes; Kirsten L Rennie; Jantine Schuit; Jo Mitchell; Susie Hennings; Nicholas E Day Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Simon Murphy; Larry Raisanen; Graham Moore; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Pat Linck; Nefyn Williams; Nafees Ud Din; Janine Hale; Chris Roberts; Elaine McNaish; Laurence Moore Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna Puig-Ribera; Carlos Martín-Cantera; Elisa Puigdomenech; Jordi Real; Montserrat Romaguera; José Félix Magdalena-Belio; Jose Ignacio Recio-Rodríguez; Beatriz Rodriguez-Martin; Maria Soledad Arietaleanizbeaskoa; Irene Repiso-Gento; Luis Garcia-Ortiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Laura M Pérez; Carmina Castellano-Tejedor; Matteo Cesari; Luis Soto-Bagaria; Joan Ars; Fabricio Zambom-Ferraresi; Sonia Baró; Francisco Díaz-Gallego; Jordi Vilaró; María B Enfedaque; Paula Espí-Valbé; Marco Inzitari Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Majid Karandish; Mahtab Tamimi; Ali Akbar Shayesteh; Mohammad Hosein Haghighizadeh; Mohammad Taha Jalali Journal: J Res Med Sci Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Carme Martín-Borràs; Maria Giné-Garriga; Elena Martínez; Carlos Martín-Cantera; Elisa Puigdoménech; Mercè Solà; Eva Castillo; Angela Ma Beltrán; Anna Puig-Ribera; José Manuel Trujillo; Olga Pueyo; Javier Pueyo; Beatriz Rodríguez; Noemí Serra-Paya Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.295