4.6 Review

Self-report use-of-time tools for the assessment of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in young people: systematic review

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages 711-722

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.00993.x

Keywords

Energy expenditure; physical activity; reliability and validity; sedentary behaviour

Funding

  1. Tertiary Education Commission
  2. Heart Foundation
  3. Heart Foundation of New Zealand

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regular physical activity and limiting extended periods of sitting are two behaviours critical for the prevention of obesity in young people. The purpose of the systematic review was to synthesize the psychometric evidence for self-report use-of-time tools that assess these behaviours. Articles were retrieved that reported reliability and/or validity for use-of-time tools in participants aged 18 years or under. Outcome variables were physical activity, sedentary behaviour and energy expenditure. Study quality was appraised, and the results summarized narratively. Sixteen studies and six different tools were identified. The tools were the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall, the Three-Day Physical Activity Recall, the Physical Activity Interview, the Computerized Activity Recall, the Activitygram, and the Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents. Overall, tools indicated moderate validity compared with objective and criterion comparison methods. Generally, validity correlation coefficients were in the range of 0.300.40. Correlation coefficients for testretest reliability ranged widely from 0.24 to 0.98. Conclusion: Use-of-time tools have indicated moderate reliability and validity for the assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure. Future research should focus on using criterion methods and on validating specifically for sedentary behaviour outcomes. Implementation of these tools for population surveillance should be considered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available