4.3 Article

Reliability and Validity of CHAMPS Self-Reported Sedentary-to-Vigorous Intensity Physical Activity in Older Adults

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 225-236

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.9.2.225

Keywords

exercise; sedentary behavior; measurement; seniors; questionnaire

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL007034, R01 HL077141, HL077141, 5 T32 HL 007034] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent research highlights the potential value of differentiating between categories of physical activity intensities as predictors of health and well-being. This study sought to assess reliability and concurrent validity of sedentary (ie, 1 METs), low-light (ie, > 1 and <= METs; eg, playing cards), high-light (ie, >2 and <3 METs; eg, light walking), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, >= METs), and total activity (>= 2 METs) from the CHAMPS survey. Further, this study explored over-reporting and double-reporting. Methods: CHAMPS data were gathered from the Seniors Neighborhood Quality of Life Study, an observational study of adults aged 65+ years conducted in 2 US regions. Results: Participants (N = 870) were 75.3 +/- 6.8 years old, with 56% women and 71% white. The CHAMPS sedentary, low-light, high-light, total activity, and MVPA variables had acceptable test-retest reliability (ICCs 0.56-0.70). The CHAMPS high-light (p = 0.27), total activity (p = 0.34), and MVPA (p = 0.37) duration scales were moderately associated with accelerometry minutes of corresponding intensity, and the sedentary scale (p = 0.12) had a lower, but significant correlation. Results suggested that several CHAMPS items may be susceptible to over-reporting (eg, walking, housework). Conclusions: CHAMPS items effectively measured high-light, total activity, and MVPA in seniors, but further refinement is needed for sedentary and low-light activity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available