AIM: This study aimed to assess convergent validity of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) interview (long form, last seven days), and to examine differences in reported physical activity and sedentary time between the self-administered and interview versions of the long IPAQ (last seven days); and whether these differences depend on gender, age, educational level and weight status. METHODS: In total, 542 Belgian adults (45.3% male, 43.8±12.1 years) completed the IPAQ self-administered version. Data of these adults were compared with data of 542 adults (45.2% male, 43.5±12.3 years) who completed the IPAQ interview version and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days. Samples were matched on gender, age, education, neighborhood characteristics and time of data collection. RESULTS: Convergent validity of the IPAQ interview version was moderate for total physical activity (Spearman ρ=0.37, P<0.001) and high for sedentary time (Spearman ρ=0.67; P<0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that systematic and proportional biases were present for total physical activity; for sedentary time only systematic bias was present. Adults who completed the self-administered IPAQ reported higher means for most types of physical activity and less sedentary time than those who completed the IPAQ interview version. Differences between the two IPAQ versions were larger in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults. CONCLUSION: Convergent validity of assessing total physical activity using IPAQ interview was similar to previous studies examining validity of the IPAQ, but stronger results were found for sedentary time. In general, and especially in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults, the use of the IPAQ interview version assessed by trained researchers, should be recommended to collect self-reported data on physical activity and sedentary time.
AIM: This study aimed to assess convergent validity of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) interview (long form, last seven days), and to examine differences in reported physical activity and sedentary time between the self-administered and interview versions of the long IPAQ (last seven days); and whether these differences depend on gender, age, educational level and weight status. METHODS: In total, 542 Belgian adults (45.3% male, 43.8±12.1 years) completed the IPAQ self-administered version. Data of these adults were compared with data of 542 adults (45.2% male, 43.5±12.3 years) who completed the IPAQ interview version and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days. Samples were matched on gender, age, education, neighborhood characteristics and time of data collection. RESULTS: Convergent validity of the IPAQ interview version was moderate for total physical activity (Spearman ρ=0.37, P<0.001) and high for sedentary time (Spearman ρ=0.67; P<0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that systematic and proportional biases were present for total physical activity; for sedentary time only systematic bias was present. Adults who completed the self-administered IPAQ reported higher means for most types of physical activity and less sedentary time than those who completed the IPAQ interview version. Differences between the two IPAQ versions were larger in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults. CONCLUSION: Convergent validity of assessing total physical activity using IPAQ interview was similar to previous studies examining validity of the IPAQ, but stronger results were found for sedentary time. In general, and especially in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults, the use of the IPAQ interview version assessed by trained researchers, should be recommended to collect self-reported data on physical activity and sedentary time.
Authors: Veerle Van Holle; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Benedicte Deforche; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Delfien Van Dyck Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Thérésa Lebacq; Cloë Ost; Sarah Bel; Loes Brocatus; Eveline Teppers; Koenraad Cuypers; Jean Tafforeau; Karin A A De Ridder Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2016-10-17
Authors: Veerle Van Holle; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Freja Gheysen; Delfien Van Dyck; Benedicte Deforche; Nico Van de Weghe; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel C Souza; Fernando Wegner; Lucíola C M Costa; Luciana D Chiavegato; Adriana C Lunardi Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2017-04-09 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Veerle Van Holle; Jelle Van Cauwenberg; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Benedicte Deforche; Nico Van de Weghe; Delfien Van Dyck Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 3.390