PURPOSE: This study examined the 1-yr test-retest reliability and criterion validity of sedentary time survey items in a subset of participants from a large, nationwide prospective cohort. METHODS: Participants included 423 women and 290 men age 31 to 72 yr in the Cancer Prevention Study-3. Reliability was assessed by computing Spearman correlation coefficients between responses from prestudy and poststudy surveys. Validity was assessed by comparing survey-estimated sedentary time with a latent variable representing true sedentary time estimated from the 7-d diaries, accelerometry, and surveys through the method of triads. Sensitivity analyses were restricted to 566 participants with an average of 14+ h of diary and accelerometer data per day for 7 d per quarter. RESULTS: Reliability estimates for total sitting time were moderate or strong across all demographic strata (Spearman ρ ≥ 0.6), with significant differences by race (P = 0.01). Reliability estimates were strongest for the TV-related sedentary time item (Spearman ρ, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.77). The overall validity coefficient (VC) for survey-assessed total sedentary time was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.69), although VC varied by age group and activity level (P < 0.05). However, VC were similar across groups (P < 0.05) when restricting to highly compliant participants in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer Prevention Study-3 sedentary behavior questionnaire has acceptable reliability and validity for ranking or categorizing participants according to sedentary time. Acceptable reliability and validity estimates persist across various demographic subgroups.
PURPOSE: This study examined the 1-yr test-retest reliability and criterion validity of sedentary time survey items in a subset of participants from a large, nationwide prospective cohort. METHODS:Participants included 423 women and 290 men age 31 to 72 yr in the Cancer Prevention Study-3. Reliability was assessed by computing Spearman correlation coefficients between responses from prestudy and poststudy surveys. Validity was assessed by comparing survey-estimated sedentary time with a latent variable representing true sedentary time estimated from the 7-d diaries, accelerometry, and surveys through the method of triads. Sensitivity analyses were restricted to 566 participants with an average of 14+ h of diary and accelerometer data per day for 7 d per quarter. RESULTS: Reliability estimates for total sitting time were moderate or strong across all demographic strata (Spearman ρ ≥ 0.6), with significant differences by race (P = 0.01). Reliability estimates were strongest for the TV-related sedentary time item (Spearman ρ, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.77). The overall validity coefficient (VC) for survey-assessed total sedentary time was 0.62 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.69), although VC varied by age group and activity level (P < 0.05). However, VC were similar across groups (P < 0.05) when restricting to highly compliant participants in a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer Prevention Study-3 sedentary behavior questionnaire has acceptable reliability and validity for ranking or categorizing participants according to sedentary time. Acceptable reliability and validity estimates persist across various demographic subgroups.
Authors: Cora L Craig; Alison L Marshall; Michael Sjöström; Adrian E Bauman; Michael L Booth; Barbara E Ainsworth; Michael Pratt; Ulf Ekelund; Agneta Yngve; James F Sallis; Pekka Oja Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Hannah Arem; Steven C Moore; Alpa Patel; Patricia Hartge; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Kala Visvanathan; Peter T Campbell; Michal Freedman; Elisabete Weiderpass; Hans Olov Adami; Martha S Linet; I-Min Lee; Charles E Matthews Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Lauren R Teras; Alpa V Patel; Molin Wang; Shiaw-Shyuan Yaun; Kristin Anderson; Roderick Brathwaite; Bette J Caan; Yu Chen; Avonne E Connor; A Heather Eliassen; Susan M Gapstur; Mia M Gaudet; Jeanine M Genkinger; Graham G Giles; I-Min Lee; Roger L Milne; Kim Robien; Norie Sawada; Howard D Sesso; Meir J Stampfer; Rulla M Tamimi; Cynthia A Thomson; Shoichiro Tsugane; Kala Visvanathan; Walter C Willett; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Stephanie A Smith-Warner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Erika Rees-Punia; Christina C Newton; Melissa H Rittase; Rebecca A Hodge; Jannie Nielsen; Solveig Cunningham; Lauren R Teras; Alpa Patel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Erika Rees-Punia; Christina C Newton; J Lee Westmaas; Sicha Chantaprasopsuk; Alpa V Patel; Corinne R Leach Journal: Ment Health Phys Act Date: 2021-09-28
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