4.6 Article

Measuring activity in children and adolescents using self-report: PAQ-C and PAQ-A

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 767-772

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181620ed1

Keywords

epidemiology; exercise; reliability; psychometric properties; recall; validity

Categories

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00059] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01-DE09551, R01-DE12101] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study examined the psychometric proper-ties of two versions of a commonly used physical activity 7-d self-report, the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C) and Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A). Methods: We longitudinally examined the internal consistency, stability, and situational effects of the PAQ-C and PAQ-A in a cohort of children (N = 210) at ages 11 and 13 yr. Statistical analysis included factor loading and standardized Cronbach coefficient alphas. We cross-sectionally examined concurrent validity of the PAQ-A in a subsample of our cohort (N = 49) at age 13 by comparing it with concurrently measured physical activity using an activity monitor (Actigraph). Spearman correlation coefficients were used for this analysis. Results: Standardized Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.72 to 0.88. A subsample analysis suggested that completing the questionnaires during the summer months slightly reduced the standardized alpha for the PAQ-C, but not the PAQ-A. Associations between the PAQ-A (revised) summary score and activity monitor variables were rho = 0.56 for total PA and rho = 0.63 for moderate through vigorous activity (P < 0.05). Associations between individual PAQ-A questions and activity monitor variables for the same time frame ranged from rho = 0.41 to 0.62 (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The PAQ-C and PAQ-A show good internal consistency. The PAQ-A has acceptable validity.

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