4.3 Article

Psychometric Properties of the IPAQ: A Validation Study in a Sample of Northern Franco-Ontarians

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 S54-S60

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.6.s1.s54

关键词

Francophone; International Physical Activity Questionnaire; Northern Ontario; pedometer

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) has received significant attention since the late 1990s. As it currently stands, its long version has been translated in English, German, Icelandic, Korean, Polish, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese. However no data originating from the self-administered long version (last 7 days) of the IPAQ (IPAQ-SALV) is available for French Canadians. This study developed a self-administered long version (last 7 days) of the IPAQ in Canadian French (IPAQ-SALVCF) and assessed its psychometric properties. Methods: The original IPAQ-SALV was linguistically translated, back-translated, and then reviewed in a focus group to ensure its meaning had been retained. Data were collected on a sample of 34 Francophones from Northern Ontario, and the results compared with step counts assessed by 7-day pedometer recording. Test-retest reliability was examined with a 24-hour delay between questionnaire completion on day 8 and day 9 of the protocol. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing IPAQ-SALVCF (last 7 days) results to average step counts over a 7-day period. Results: Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) revealed that the IPAQ-SALVCF results were stable between days. The ICC for total activity scores was highest at 0.93 (CI: 0.86 to 0.97). Total activity scores were also significantly related to pedometer step counts (Pearson r = .66 P < .01). These results confirm those obtained in prior research Conclusion: The IPAQ-SALVCF is a reliable and valid measure of physical activity for French Canadians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据