4.1 Article

Reliability and Validity of the PAQ-C Questionnaire to Assess Physical Activity in Children

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH
Volume 86, Issue 9, Pages 677-685

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/josh.12418

Keywords

accelerometry; PAQ; childhood; validation; self-reported physical activity

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport [AP2010-0583]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness [DEP2011-30565]
  3. University of Malaga (Campus of International Excellence Andalucia Tech)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) assessment by questionnaire is a cornerstone in the field of sport epidemiology studies. The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) has been used widely to assess PA in healthy school populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PAQ-C questionnaire in Spanish children using triaxial accelerometry as criterion. METHODS: Eighty-three (N = 46 boys, N = 37 girls) healthy children (age 10.98 +/- 1.17 years, body mass index 19.48 +/- 3.51 kg/m(2)) were volunteers and completed the PAQ-C twice and wore an accelerometer for 8 consecutive days. Reliability was analyzed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the internal consistency by the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The PAQ-C was compared against total PA and moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) obtained by accelerometry. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability showed an ICC = 0.96 for the final score of PAQ-C. Small differences between first and second questionnaire administration were detected. Few and low correlations (rho = 0.228-0.278, all ps < .05) were observed between PAQ-C and accelerometry. The highest correlation was observed for item 9 (rho = 0.311, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: PAQ-C had a high reliability but a questionable validity for assessing total PA and MVPA in Spanish children. Therefore, PA measurement in children should not be limited only to self-report measurements.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available