4.3 Article

Validation of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Among Blacks

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 746-760

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.5.5.746

Keywords

physical activity assessment; measurement; epidemiology; community-based research

Funding

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R25CA100600, R01CA098864] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R25 CA100600, R01 CA098864, 5R01CA098864-02, 3R01CA098864-02S1, R01 CA098864-02] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-S) has been evaluated against accelerometer-determined physical activity measures in small homogenous samples of adults in the United States. There is limited information about the validity of the IPAQ-S in diverse US samples. Methods: 142 Blacks residing in low-income housing completed the IPAQ-S and wore an accelerometer for up to 6 days. Both 1- and 10-minute accelerometer bouts were used to define time spent in light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity. Results: We found fair agreement between the IPAQ-S and accelerometer-determined physical activity (r = .26 for 10-minute bout, r = .36 for 1-minute bout). Correlations were higher among men than women. When we classified participants as meeting physical activity recommendations, agreement was low (kappa = .04, 10-minute; kappa = .21, 1-minute); only 25% of individuals were classified the same by both instruments (10-minute bout). Conclusions: In one of the few studies to assess the validity of a self-reported physical activity measure among Blacks, we found moderate correlations with accelerometer data, though correlations were weaker for women. Correlations were smaller when IPAQ-S data were compared using a 10-versus a 1-minute bout definition. There was limited evidence for agreement between the instruments when classifying participants as meeting physical activity recommendations.

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