Facial reconstruction

Search LJMU Research Online

Browse Repository | Browse E-Theses

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bakker, EA, Hartman, YAW, Hopman, MTE, Hopkins, ND, Graves, LEF, Dunstan, DW, Healy, GN, Eijsvogels, TMH and Thijssen, DHJ (2020) Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17 (1). ISSN 1479-5868

Bakker. Subjective measures of SB. IJBNPA 2020.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (1MB) | Preview


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.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: 11 Medical and Health Sciences, 13 Education
Subjects: R Medicine > RC Internal medicine > RC1200 Sports Medicine
Divisions: Sport & Exercise Sciences
Related URLs:
Date Deposited: 22 Jun 2020 11:18
Last Modified: 04 Sep 2021 07:08
DOI or ID number: 10.1186/s12966-020-00972-1
URI: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/13152
View Item View Item