Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2020
Overview
Background
Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.
Methods
The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.
Results
The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [
R
] range − 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (
R
= 0.63 [95%CI 0.48–0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (
R
= 0.35 [95%CI 0.32–0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item
R
= 0.34; 2-to-9-items
R
= 0.35; ≥10-items
R
= 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.
Conclusion
Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires.
Registration number
CRD42018105994.
