4.3 Article

Validation of the Jackson Heart Study Physical Activity Survey in African Americans

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages S124-S132

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.6.s1.s124

Keywords

physical activity; accelerometry; pedometry; cardiovascular health

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HC-95170] Funding Source: Medline
  2. DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS [N01HC095170] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Physical inactivity has been consistently linked to cardiovascular disease, yet few instruments have been validated for assessment of physical activity in African Americans, a group particularly vulnerable to heart disease. The current study aimed to establish the psychometric properties of the activity survey used in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) among African Americans, the JHS Physical Activity Cohort survey (JPAC). Methods: Test-retest reliability over 2 weeks was assessed using a convenience sample of 40 African Americans. Convergent validity with accelerometer and pedometer data were assessed in 2 samples from the JHS (N = 404 and 294, respectively). Results: Test-retest reliability was excellent, with intraclass correlations = .99 for the JPAC total and index scores. Higher JPAC total scores were significantly associated with higher raw accelerometer and pedometer counts. Spearman correlations between JPAC total scores and accelerometer (rho = .24) and pedometer counts (rho = .32) were consistent with these results. Most subscales were significantly correlated with the objective measures. The JPAC total score was most strongly associated with objectively-measured activity. Conclusion: This study provides support for the reliability and validity of the JPAC as a tool for assessing physical activity among African Americans across a variety of domains.

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