Júlia Caetano Martins1, Larissa Tavares Aguiar2, Sylvie Nadeau3, Aline Alvim Scianni1, Luci Fuscaldi Teixeira-Salmela1, Christina Danielli Coelho De Morais Faria4. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil; Institut de réadaptation Gingras-Lindsay de Montréal (IRGLM), CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Université de Montreal (UdeM), Montréal, Canada. 3. Institut de réadaptation Gingras-Lindsay de Montréal (IRGLM), CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Université de Montreal (UdeM), Montréal, Canada. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Electronic address: cdcmf@ufmg.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with stroke demonstrate low levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity are frequently used and the choice of the best one to use for each purpose and context should take into account the measurement properties of these instruments. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the measurement properties and clinical utility of self-report measures of physical activity of post-stroke subjects and to evaluate both the methodological quality of the studies and the quality of the measurement properties. METHODS: Searches were made in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, LILACS, and SCIELO. Two reviewers independently screened studies that investigated measurement properties or clinical utility of self-report measures of physical activity in post-stroke subjects. The studies' methodological quality, quality of the measurement properties, and clinical utility were evaluated. RESULTS: From the 11,826 identified studies, 19 were included. Six self-report tools were evaluated: The Activity card sort, Coded activity diary, Frenchay activities index (FAI), Human activity profile (HAP), Multimedia activity recall for children and adults, and the Nottingham leisure questionnaire. The methodological quality of the studies ranged from "poor" to "good". Most of the results regarding the quality of the measurement properties were doubtful. None of the self-report tools had their content validity investigated. The FAI and HAP showed the highest clinical utility scores. CONCLUSIONS: Content validity needs to be better investigated to determine if the instruments actually measure the physical activity domain. Further studies with good methodological quality are required to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting the best instrument to measure physical activity levels.
BACKGROUND: Individuals with stroke demonstrate low levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity are frequently used and the choice of the best one to use for each purpose and context should take into account the measurement properties of these instruments. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the measurement properties and clinical utility of self-report measures of physical activity of post-stroke subjects and to evaluate both the methodological quality of the studies and the quality of the measurement properties. METHODS: Searches were made in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, LILACS, and SCIELO. Two reviewers independently screened studies that investigated measurement properties or clinical utility of self-report measures of physical activity in post-stroke subjects. The studies' methodological quality, quality of the measurement properties, and clinical utility were evaluated. RESULTS: From the 11,826 identified studies, 19 were included. Six self-report tools were evaluated: The Activity card sort, Coded activity diary, Frenchay activities index (FAI), Human activity profile (HAP), Multimedia activity recall for children and adults, and the Nottingham leisure questionnaire. The methodological quality of the studies ranged from "poor" to "good". Most of the results regarding the quality of the measurement properties were doubtful. None of the self-report tools had their content validity investigated. The FAI and HAP showed the highest clinical utility scores. CONCLUSIONS: Content validity needs to be better investigated to determine if the instruments actually measure the physical activity domain. Further studies with good methodological quality are required to assist clinicians and researchers in selecting the best instrument to measure physical activity levels.
Authors: Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Anja Frei; Kate Williams; Anders Vetsch; Fabienne Dobbels; Laura Jacobs; Katja Rüdell; Milo A Puhan Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 3.186
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