PURPOSE: The aim of this research was to provide convergent validity evidence for the use of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ) to classify breast cancer survivors into active and insufficiently active categories. METHODS: Data were collected among a sample of breast cancer survivors (N = 199; mean age = 55 years) to examine the association between physical activity assessed with a GT3X triaxial accelerometer and the use of the GSLTPAQ's coding system recently proposed by Godin (2011). Participants self-reported moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) performed in a typical week on the GSLTPAQ and those with MVPA leisure score index ≥ 24 were classified as active. RESULTS: ANCOVA revealed that the adjusted mean [95% CI] number of recorded MVPA minutes was higher for respondents classified as active (145.54 [127.26; 163.83]) compared to respondents classified as insufficiently active (86.99 [74.04; 99.94]). The GSLTPAQ and accelerometer classified 33.8 and 27.2% of participants as active, respectively (agreement = 70.8%). Sensitivity and specificity values were 75.3 and 58.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The GSLTPAQ can be used to classify cancer survivors into active and insufficiently active categories in reference to cancer survivors' physical activity guidelines. However, it has greater capacity to correctly identify insufficiently active respondents. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The use of the GSLTPAQ's classification coding in oncology research could improve the quality of physical activity recommendations and interventions handed out to cancer survivors.
PURPOSE: The aim of this research was to provide convergent validity evidence for the use of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ) to classify breast cancer survivors into active and insufficiently active categories. METHODS: Data were collected among a sample of breast cancer survivors (N = 199; mean age = 55 years) to examine the association between physical activity assessed with a GT3X triaxial accelerometer and the use of the GSLTPAQ's coding system recently proposed by Godin (2011). Participants self-reported moderate and vigorous physical activity (MVPA) performed in a typical week on the GSLTPAQ and those with MVPA leisure score index ≥ 24 were classified as active. RESULTS: ANCOVA revealed that the adjusted mean [95% CI] number of recorded MVPA minutes was higher for respondents classified as active (145.54 [127.26; 163.83]) compared to respondents classified as insufficiently active (86.99 [74.04; 99.94]). The GSLTPAQ and accelerometer classified 33.8 and 27.2% of participants as active, respectively (agreement = 70.8%). Sensitivity and specificity values were 75.3 and 58.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The GSLTPAQ can be used to classify cancer survivors into active and insufficiently active categories in reference to cancer survivors' physical activity guidelines. However, it has greater capacity to correctly identify insufficiently active respondents. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The use of the GSLTPAQ's classification coding in oncology research could improve the quality of physical activity recommendations and interventions handed out to cancer survivors.
Authors: Cheryl L Rock; Colleen Doyle; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried; Jeffrey Meyerhardt; Kerry S Courneya; Anna L Schwartz; Elisa V Bandera; Kathryn K Hamilton; Barbara Grant; Marji McCullough; Tim Byers; Ted Gansler Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-04-26 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 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: Priyanka A Pophali; Andrew Ip; Melissa C Larson; Allison C Rosenthal; Matthew J Maurer; Christopher R Flowers; Brian K Link; Umar Farooq; Andrew L Feldman; Cristine Allmer; Susan L Slager; Thomas E Witzig; Thomas M Habermann; Jonathon B Cohen; James R Cerhan; Carrie A Thompson Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Jenna Smith-Turchyn; Julie Richardson; Richard Tozer; Margaret McNeely; Lehana Thabane Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rachel Hirschey; Isaac Lipkus; Lee Jones; Christopher Mantyh; Richard Sloane; Wendy Demark-Wahnefried Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Avelina C Padin; Stephanie J Wilson; Brittney E Bailey; William B Malarkey; Maryam B Lustberg; William B Farrar; Stephen P Povoski; Doreen M Agnese; Raquel E Reinbolt; Robert Wesolowski; Nicole Williams; Sagar Sardesai; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Anne M Noonan; Jeffrey B Vandeusen; Garrie J Haas; Janice K Kiecolt-Glaser Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2019-06
Authors: Robert S Krouse; Christopher S Wendel; David O Garcia; Marcia Grant; Larissa K F Temple; Scott B Going; Mark C Hornbrook; Joanna E Bulkley; Carmit K McMullen; Lisa J Herrinton Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Stevens; Kelly A Loffler; Matthew P Buman; David W Dunstan; Yuanming Luo; Geraldo Lorenzi-Filho; Ferran E Barbe; Craig S Anderson; R Doug McEvoy Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 4.062