4.5 Article

Psychometric properties of the physical activity questionnaire for older children (PAQ-C) in the UK

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY OF SPORT AND EXERCISE
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 280-287

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.02.002

Keywords

Factor analysis; Measurement; Psychometrics; Reliability; Validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C) is a validated self-report questionnaire designed to assess moderate to vigorous physical activity in children. Currently however, there are no data supporting the use of the PAQ-C in British samples. Design: Two studies using independent samples assessed the psychometric properties of the PAQ-C in children aged 9-11 from the UK. Method: Study one (N = 336) examined general test score characteristics, internal reliability, factor structure and construct validity of the PAQ-C with the Self-Report Habit Index (SRHI). Study two (N = 131) re-examined the factor structure and assessed convergent validity with BMI and cardiovascular fitness (CVF). Results: The PAQ-C had acceptable item distribution, item total correlations (>.30) and internal reliability (alpha = .82 & .84). Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) identified two factors which appear to be sensitive to the context in which the activity is performed 'in school' and 'out of school'. The PAQ-C was related to the SRHI (r = .30) and inversely related to CVF (r = -.38) but not with BMI. Conclusions: With the exception of one problematic item; physical activity during PE, several analyses suggested that the PAQ-C had acceptable measurement properties in this group. Pragmatically, the ease of use and efficient format of the PAQ-C makes it a feasible option for large studies and/or when time, money and manpower are limited. That said, further development of the PAQ-C may be required for younger samples and its usefulness for intervention research has yet to be established. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available