Jessica Gorzelitz1, Paul E Peppard2, Kristen Malecki2, Keith Gennuso3, F Javier Nieto4, Lisa Cadmus-Bertram5. 1. Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. 2. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. 3. University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, Madison. 4. College of Public Health and Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 5. Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. Electronic address: lisa.bertram@wisc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of free-living physical activity is challenging in population-based research, whether using device-based or reported methods. Our purpose was to identify demographic predictors of discordance between physical activity assessment methods and to determine how these predictors modify the discordance between device-based and reported physical activity measurement methods. METHODS: Three hundred forty-seven adults from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin wore the ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days and completed the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to assess predictors of discordance including gender, education, body mass index, marital status, and other individual level characteristics in physical activity reporting. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of men and 72% of women self-reported meeting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for aerobic activity but when measured by accelerometer, only 21% of men and 17% of women met guidelines. Demographic characteristics that predicted discordance between methods in multivariate regression included greater educational attainment (P < .001) and partnered status (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: These varying levels of discordance imply that comparisons of self-reported activity among groups defined by (or substantially varying by) educational attainment or marital status should be done with considerable caution as observed differences may be due, in part, to systematic, differential measurement biases among groups.
PURPOSE: Accurate measurement of free-living physical activity is challenging in population-based research, whether using device-based or reported methods. Our purpose was to identify demographic predictors of discordance between physical activity assessment methods and to determine how these predictors modify the discordance between device-based and reported physical activity measurement methods. METHODS: Three hundred forty-seven adults from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin wore the ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days and completed the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to assess predictors of discordance including gender, education, body mass index, marital status, and other individual level characteristics in physical activity reporting. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of men and 72% of women self-reported meeting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for aerobic activity but when measured by accelerometer, only 21% of men and 17% of women met guidelines. Demographic characteristics that predicted discordance between methods in multivariate regression included greater educational attainment (P < .001) and partnered status (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: These varying levels of discordance imply that comparisons of self-reported activity among groups defined by (or substantially varying by) educational attainment or marital status should be done with considerable caution as observed differences may be due, in part, to systematic, differential measurement biases among groups.
Authors: F Javier Nieto; Paul E Peppard; Corinne D Engelman; Jane A McElroy; Loren W Galvao; Elliot M Friedman; Andrew J Bersch; Kristen C Malecki Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 3.295
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: Ulf Ekelund; Hanna Sepp; Sören Brage; Wulf Becker; Rupert Jakes; Mark Hennings; Nicholas J Wareham Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Stéphanie A Prince; Kristi B Adamo; Meghan E Hamel; Jill Hardt; Sarah Connor Gorber; Mark Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Johannes Knauer; Yannik Terhorst; Paula Philippi; Selina Kallinger; Sandro Eiler; Reinhold Kilian; Tamara Waldmann; Morten Moshagen; Martina Bader; Harald Baumeister Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jessica Gorzelitz; Erin S Costanzo; Ryan J Spencer; Meredith Rumble; Stephen L Rose; Lisa Cadmus-Bertram Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Isaac Moshe; Yannik Terhorst; Kennedy Opoku Asare; Lasse Bosse Sander; Denzil Ferreira; Harald Baumeister; David C Mohr; Laura Pulkki-Råback Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Kristen M C Malecki; Maria Nikodemova; Amy A Schultz; Tamara J LeCaire; Andrew J Bersch; Lisa Cadmus-Bertram; Corinne D Engelman; Erika Hagen; Mari Palta; Ajay K Sethi; Matt C Walsh; F Javier Nieto; Paul E Peppard Journal: medRxiv Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Cecília Bertuol; Alexandre Vinicius Bobato Tozetto; Silas Nery de Oliveira; Giovani Firpo Del Duca Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2022-01-06
Authors: Xiaofen D Keating; Ke Zhou; Xiaolu Liu; Michael Hodges; Jingwen Liu; Jianmin Guan; Ashley Phelps; Jose Castro-Piñero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-26 Impact factor: 3.390