Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program

Nicole FREENE, Gordon WADDINGTON, Wendy Chesworth, Rachel DAVEY, Tom COCHRANE

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5. s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations. Results: The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p<0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p≤0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29±21mind -1 vs. G 57±35mind -1 , p≤0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r=0.39-0.68, p<0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r=0.49-0.64, p≤0.001). Conclusions: Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)611-616
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Self Report
Exercise
Accelerometry
Physical Therapists
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{5b6d2f45b8094d8f87177cc166bf4ad4,
title = "Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program",
abstract = "Objectives: To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5. s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations. Results: The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p<0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p≤0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29±21mind -1 vs. G 57±35mind -1 , p≤0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r=0.39-0.68, p<0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r=0.49-0.64, p≤0.001). Conclusions: Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.",
keywords = "Accelerometer, Diary, Intervention study, Physical activity, Questionnaire, Validation study",
author = "Nicole FREENE and Gordon WADDINGTON and Wendy Chesworth and Rachel DAVEY and Tom COCHRANE",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.002",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "611--616",
journal = "Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport",
issn = "1440-2440",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program

AU - FREENE, Nicole

AU - WADDINGTON, Gordon

AU - Chesworth, Wendy

AU - DAVEY, Rachel

AU - COCHRANE, Tom

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objectives: To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5. s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations. Results: The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p<0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p≤0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29±21mind -1 vs. G 57±35mind -1 , p≤0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r=0.39-0.68, p<0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r=0.49-0.64, p≤0.001). Conclusions: Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.

AB - Objectives: To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5. s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations. Results: The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p<0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p≤0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29±21mind -1 vs. G 57±35mind -1 , p≤0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r=0.39-0.68, p<0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r=0.49-0.64, p≤0.001). Conclusions: Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.

KW - Accelerometer

KW - Diary

KW - Intervention study

KW - Physical activity

KW - Questionnaire

KW - Validation study

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908042535&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/validating-two-selfreport-physical-activity-measures-middleaged-adults-completing-group-exercise-hom

U2 - 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.002

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 611

EP - 616

JO - Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

JF - Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

SN - 1440-2440

IS - 6

ER -