Bronwyn Sudholz1, Nicola D Ridgers1, Alexander Mussap2, Jason Bennie3, Anna Timperio1, Jo Salmon4. 1. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Australia. 2. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Australia. 3. Strategic Research Projects, University of Southern Queensland, Australia. 4. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Australia. Electronic address: jo.salmon@deakin.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prolonged sitting is a health risk factor which is ubiquitous to the workplace, and breaking up prolonged sitting is widely recommended. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of a self-report measure of duration of sitting and breaks from sitting in the workplace. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifty-nine workers who reported spending most of their work time sitting wore an activPAL inclinometer and the ActiGraph accelerometer for eight consecutive days, and completed single-item measures of duration of sitting (min/work hour) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), twice, seven days apart. RESULTS: Participants reported sitting at work for a median of 420min/day (Interquartile Range=360-450min/day) and taking one break (Interquartile Range=1.0-2.0) from sitting per work hour. For reported duration of workplace sitting, test-retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.78, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]=0.65, 0.86), and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman's Rho=0.24, CI-1.0,0.47) and the ActiGraph (Rho=0.39, CI=0.15, 0.68). For reported breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), test-retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.65, CI=0.48, 0.78) and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman's Rho=0.39, CI=0.25, 0.74) and the ActiGraph (Spearman's Rho=0.30, CI=0.15, 0.69). Self-reported duration of sitting was biased toward over-reporting compared to the activPAL (median=45.4min) and under-reporting compared to the ActiGraph (median=21.7min). CONCLUSIONS: This study found adequate reliability and fair validity for self-reported duration of sitting (min/work day) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour). Further validity research is needed using the inclinometer.
OBJECTIVES: Prolonged sitting is a health risk factor which is ubiquitous to the workplace, and breaking up prolonged sitting is widely recommended. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of a self-report measure of duration of sitting and breaks from sitting in the workplace. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Fifty-nine workers who reported spending most of their work time sitting wore an activPAL inclinometer and the ActiGraph accelerometer for eight consecutive days, and completed single-item measures of duration of sitting (min/work hour) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), twice, seven days apart. RESULTS:Participants reported sitting at work for a median of 420min/day (Interquartile Range=360-450min/day) and taking one break (Interquartile Range=1.0-2.0) from sitting per work hour. For reported duration of workplace sitting, test-retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.78, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]=0.65, 0.86), and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman's Rho=0.24, CI-1.0,0.47) and the ActiGraph (Rho=0.39, CI=0.15, 0.68). For reported breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour), test-retest reliability was adequate (Intra-Class Correlations=0.65, CI=0.48, 0.78) and concurrent validity fair against the activPAL (Spearman's Rho=0.39, CI=0.25, 0.74) and the ActiGraph (Spearman's Rho=0.30, CI=0.15, 0.69). Self-reported duration of sitting was biased toward over-reporting compared to the activPAL (median=45.4min) and under-reporting compared to the ActiGraph (median=21.7min). CONCLUSIONS: This study found adequate reliability and fair validity for self-reported duration of sitting (min/work day) and breaks from sitting (frequency/per work hour). Further validity research is needed using the inclinometer.
Authors: Stephanie A Prince; Cara G Elliott; Kyle Scott; Sarah Visintini; Jennifer L Reed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Veerle Van Oeckel; Benedicte Deforche; Nicola D Ridgers; Elling Bere; Maïté Verloigne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bronwyn K Clark; Samantha K Stephens; Ana D Goode; Genevieve N Healy; Elisabeth A H Winkler Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Esmée A Bakker; Yvonne A W Hartman; Maria T E Hopman; Nicola D Hopkins; Lee E F Graves; David W Dunstan; Genevieve N Healy; Thijs M H Eijsvogels; Dick H J Thijssen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Lidewij R Renaud; Maaike A Huysmans; Hidde P van der Ploeg; Erwin M Speklé; Allard J van der Beek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 3.390