PURPOSE: A previous-day recall (PDR) may be a less error-prone alternative to traditional questionnaire-based estimates of physical activity and sedentary behavior (e.g., past year), but the validity of the method is not established. We evaluated the validity of an interviewer administered PDR in adolescents (12-17 yr) and adults (18-71 yr). METHODS: In a 7-d study, participants completed three PDR, wore two activity monitors, and completed measures of social desirability and body mass index. PDR measures of active and sedentary time was contrasted against an accelerometer (ActiGraph) by comparing both to a valid reference measure (activPAL) using measurement error modeling and traditional validation approaches. RESULTS: Age- and sex-specific mixed models comparing PDR to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a strong linear relationship between measures for sedentary (regression slope, β1 = 0.80-1.13) and active time (β1 = 0.64-1.09), 2) person-specific bias was lower than random error, and 3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.60-0.81; active: r = 0.52-0.80). Reporting errors were not associated with body mass index or social desirability. Models comparing ActiGraph to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a weaker linear relationship between measures for sedentary (β1 = 0.63-0.73) and active time (β1 = 0.61-0.72), (2) person-specific bias was slightly larger than random error, and (3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.68-0.77; active: r = 0.57-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between the PDR and the activPAL were high, systematic reporting errors were low, and the validity of the PDR was comparable with the ActiGraph. PDR may have value in studies of physical activity and health, particularly those interested in measuring the specific type, location, and purpose of activity-related behaviors.
PURPOSE: A previous-day recall (PDR) may be a less error-prone alternative to traditional questionnaire-based estimates of physical activity and sedentary behavior (e.g., past year), but the validity of the method is not established. We evaluated the validity of an interviewer administered PDR in adolescents (12-17 yr) and adults (18-71 yr). METHODS: In a 7-d study, participants completed three PDR, wore two activity monitors, and completed measures of social desirability and body mass index. PDR measures of active and sedentary time was contrasted against an accelerometer (ActiGraph) by comparing both to a valid reference measure (activPAL) using measurement error modeling and traditional validation approaches. RESULTS: Age- and sex-specific mixed models comparing PDR to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a strong linear relationship between measures for sedentary (regression slope, β1 = 0.80-1.13) and active time (β1 = 0.64-1.09), 2) person-specific bias was lower than random error, and 3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.60-0.81; active: r = 0.52-0.80). Reporting errors were not associated with body mass index or social desirability. Models comparing ActiGraph to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a weaker linear relationship between measures for sedentary (β1 = 0.63-0.73) and active time (β1 = 0.61-0.72), (2) person-specific bias was slightly larger than random error, and (3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.68-0.77; active: r = 0.57-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Correlations between the PDR and the activPAL were high, systematic reporting errors were low, and the validity of the PDR was comparable with the ActiGraph. PDR may have value in studies of physical activity and health, particularly those interested in measuring the specific type, location, and purpose of activity-related behaviors.
Authors: James R Hebert; Cara B Ebbeling; Charles E Matthews; Thomas G Hurley; Yunsheng MA; Susan Druker; Lynn Clemow Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Miguel A Calabro; Gregory J Welk; Alicia L Carriquiry; Sarah M Nusser; Nicholas K Beyler; Charles E Mathews Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2009-03
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: Arthur Schatzkin; Amy F Subar; Steven Moore; Yikyung Park; Nancy Potischman; Frances E Thompson; Michael Leitzmann; Albert Hollenbeck; Kerry Grace Morrissey; Victor Kipnis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gregory J Welk; Youngwon Kim; Bryan Stanfill; David A Osthus; Miguel A Calabro; Sarah M Nusser; Alicia Carriquiry Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Richard P Troiano; Lisa Kahle; Annemarie Koster; Robert Brychta; Dane Van Domelen; Paolo Caserotti; Kong Y Chen; Tamara B Harris; David Berrigan Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Sarah K Keadle; David E Conroy; Matthew P Buman; David W Dunstan; Charles E Matthews Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Cher M Dallal; Louise A Brinton; Charles E Matthews; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Terryl J Hartman; Jolanta Lissowska; Roni T Falk; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Xia Xu; Timothy D Veenstra; Gretchen L Gierach Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Somdat Mahabir; Walter C Willett; Christine M Friedenreich; Gabriel Y Lai; Carol J Boushey; Charles E Matthews; Rashmi Sinha; Graham A Colditz; Joseph A Rothwell; Jill Reedy; Alpa V Patel; Michael F Leitzmann; Gary E Fraser; Sharon Ross; Stephen D Hursting; Christian C Abnet; Lawrence H Kushi; Philip R Taylor; Ross L Prentice Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Brigid M Lynch; Christine M Friedenreich; Karen A Kopciuk; Albert R Hollenbeck; Steven C Moore; Charles E Matthews Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Oluwole Adeyemi Babatunde; Swann Arp Adams; Samantha Truman; Erica Sercy; Angela E Murphy; Samira Khan; Thomas G Hurley; Michael D Wirth; Seul Ki Choi; Hiluv Johnson; James R Hebert Journal: Women Health Date: 2020-04-05
Authors: Kathryn R Martin; Annemarie Koster; Rachel A Murphy; Dane R Van Domelen; Ming-yang Hung; Robert J Brychta; Kong Y Chen; Tamara B Harris Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Joshua N Sampson; Charles E Matthews; Laurence Freedman; Raymond J Carroll; Victor Kipnis Journal: J Appl Stat Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 1.404