BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and results of Statistics Canada surveys have shown a discrepancy between self-reported and measured physical activity. This study compares these two methods and examines specific activities to explain the limitations of each method. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from cycle 1 (2007 to 2009) and cycle 2 (2009 to 2011) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. The survey involved an interview in the respondent's home and a visit to a mobile examination centre (MEC) for physical measurements. In a questionnaire, respondents were asked about 21 leisure-time physical activities. They were requested to wear an Actical accelerometer for seven days after the MEC visit. The analysis pertains to respondents aged 12 to 79 who wore the accelerometer for 10 or more hours on at least four days (n = 7,158). RESULTS: Averages of self-reported leisure-time physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity measured by accelerometer were within a couple of minutes of each other. However, at the individual level, the difference between estimates could exceed 37.5 minutes per day in one direction or the other, and around 40% of the population met physical activity thresholds according to one measurement method, but not according to the other. The disagreement is supported by weak observed correlations. INTERPRETATION: The lack of a systematic trend in the relationship between the two methods of measuring physical activity precludes the creation of correction factors or being confident in using one method instead of the other. Accelerometers and questionnaires measure different aspects of physical activity.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and results of Statistics Canada surveys have shown a discrepancy between self-reported and measured physical activity. This study compares these two methods and examines specific activities to explain the limitations of each method. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from cycle 1 (2007 to 2009) and cycle 2 (2009 to 2011) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. The survey involved an interview in the respondent's home and a visit to a mobile examination centre (MEC) for physical measurements. In a questionnaire, respondents were asked about 21 leisure-time physical activities. They were requested to wear an Actical accelerometer for seven days after the MEC visit. The analysis pertains to respondents aged 12 to 79 who wore the accelerometer for 10 or more hours on at least four days (n = 7,158). RESULTS: Averages of self-reported leisure-time physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity measured by accelerometer were within a couple of minutes of each other. However, at the individual level, the difference between estimates could exceed 37.5 minutes per day in one direction or the other, and around 40% of the population met physical activity thresholds according to one measurement method, but not according to the other. The disagreement is supported by weak observed correlations. INTERPRETATION: The lack of a systematic trend in the relationship between the two methods of measuring physical activity precludes the creation of correction factors or being confident in using one method instead of the other. Accelerometers and questionnaires measure different aspects of physical activity.
Keywords:
Data collection; direct measure; misclassification; motor activity; movement
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Melanie E Freedman; Lauren E Harnedy; Elyse R Park; James L Januzzi; Brian C Healy; Jeff C Huffman Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Taniya S Nagpal; Gary S Goldfield; Danilo F da Silva; Sara Souza; Patricia Burhunduli; Rebecca H Liu; Patti-Jean Naylor; Kristi B Adamo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathleen A Martin Ginis; Jan W van der Scheer; Amy E Latimer-Cheung; Andy Barrow; Chris Bourne; Peter Carruthers; Marco Bernardi; David S Ditor; Sonja Gaudet; Sonja de Groot; Keith C Hayes; Audrey L Hicks; Christof A Leicht; Jan Lexell; Steven Macaluso; Patricia J Manns; Christopher B McBride; Vanessa Noonan; Pierre Pomerleau; James H Rimmer; Robert B Shaw; Brett Smith; Karen M Smith; John Steeves; Dot Tussler; Christopher R West; Dalton L Wolfe; Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2018-01-18 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Melanie L Kornides; Eric B Rimm; Jorge E Chavarro; Matthew W Gillman; Bernard Rosner; Alison E Field Journal: Child Obes Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 2.992
Authors: Christopher M Celano; Julia Golden; Brian C Healy; Regina M Longley; Jeff C Huffman Journal: Int J Psychiatry Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 1.210
Authors: François Boudreau; Gilles R Dagenais; Hein de Vries; Michel Jean Louis Walthouwer; José Côté; Ginette Turbide; Anne-Sophie Bourlaud; Paul Poirier Journal: Health Psychol Behav Med Date: 2020-12-08