Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A source of systematic bias in self-reported physical activity: The cutpoint bias hypothesis
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?
A source of systematic bias in self-reported physical activity: The cutpoint bias hypothesis
Do you wish to request the book?
A source of systematic bias in self-reported physical activity: The cutpoint bias hypothesis
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
A source of systematic bias in self-reported physical activity: The cutpoint bias hypothesis
2019
Overview
Estimates of adults’ moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) based on self-report are generally higher than estimates derived from criterion measures. This study examines a possible explanation for part of this discrepancy: the cutpoint bias hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that inter- and intra-individual variability in energy expenditure, combined with the fact that adults perform a high proportion of daily activities at or just above the traditional 3 MET cutpoint, result in systematic over-estimates of MVPA.
Cross-sectional.
Time-use recalls (n = 6862) were collected using the Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adults from 2210 adults (1215 female, age 16–93 years) from 16 studies conducted in Australia and New Zealand between 2008-2017. Minutes spent in MVPA were estimated using models with varying levels of intra- and inter-individual (total variability) Unadjusted (0% total variability), Low (11.9%), Best Guess (20.7%), and High (30.0%).
In the Unadjusted model, participants accumulated an average of 129 (standard deviation 127) min/day of MVPA. Estimated MVPA was 98 (110), 99 (107) and 108 (107) min/day in the Low, Best Guess and High variability models, respectively, with intra-class correlation coefficients with the Unadjusted model ranging from 0.78 to 0.83.
These findings support the hypothesis of a cutpoint bias, which probably contributes to the large disparities seen between self-reported and criterion measures of MVPA. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings using other self-report instruments and in other populations.
