Device-based monitoring in physical activity versus self-report in Uruguayan university students

Authors

  • Enrique Pintos-Toledo Universidad de la República, Instituto Superior de Educación Física. Grupo de Investigación en Análisis del Rendimiento Humano, Rivera
  • Bruno Bizzozero-Peroni Universidad de la República, Instituto Superior de Educación Física. Grupo de Investigación en Análisis del Rendimiento Humano, Rivera
  • Sofía Fernández-Giménez Universidad de la República, Instituto Superior de Educación Física. Grupo de Investigación en Análisis del Rendimiento Humano, Rivera
  • César Augusto Corvos Universidad de la República, Instituto Superior de Educación Física. Grupo de Investigación en Análisis del Rendimiento Humano, Rivera
  • Javier Brazo-Sayavera Universidad de la República, Grupo de Investigación en Análisis del Rendimiento Humano. Polo de Desarrollo Universitario Educación Física Salud y Calidad de Vida. Centro Universitario Regional Noreste, Rivera

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29193/RMU.38.2.4

Keywords:

PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, EVALUATION, RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY, ADULT

Abstract

Introduction: precise measurement of physical activity (PA) is key to analyze its association with health results. However, there are no studies in Uruguay comparing the different methods to determine PA in adults. The study aims to analyze the reliability of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) in Uruguayan university students and to assess its validity by comparing it to device-based monitoring PA.
Method: 54 Physical Education university students completed the IPAQ (long version) on 2 occasions with a 7 day difference using GeneActive accelerometers during that period. Reliability was assessed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman analysis was used to determine concurrent validity.
Results: all PA domains evidenced moderate ICC levels. Transport (ICC= 0.64), free time (ICC= 0.58) and total PA (ICC= 0.53) were the domains with the highest moderate levels. The total number of minutes of PA assessed by IPAQ reported an average of a 773 minutes difference (CI 95%: 362.88; 1184.01). Difference of PA in minutes, considering the assessment with the IPAQ and the accelerometers is 752 minutes (CI 95%: 418.05; 1087.16).
Conclusions: the IPAQ overestimates the PA when compared to the accelerometer in Uruguayan university students. However, it was more reliable when considering the transport and free time domains for participants who reported an average physical activity under 400 minutes per week.

References

1) Thornton JS, Frémont P, Khan K, Poirier P, Fowles J, Wells GD, et al. Physical activity prescription: a critical opportunity to address a modifiable risk factor for the prevention and management of chronic disease: a position statement by the Canadian Academy Sport and Exercise Medicine. Br J Sports Med 2016; 50(18):1109-14.
2) Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med 2020; 54 (24):62.
3) Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.
4) Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012; 380(9838):247-57.
5) Vanhees L, Lefevre J, Philippaerts R, Martens M, Huygens W, Troosters T, et al. How to assess physical activity? How to assess physical fitness? Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2005; 12(2):102-14.
6) Bakker EA, Eijsvogels TM, de Vegt F, Busser GS, Hopman MT, Verbeek A. Patiënten in beweging: gevalideerde methoden om lichamelijke activiteit the kwantificeren. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2015; 159:A8709.
7) Jansson E, Hagströmer M, Anderssen SA. Fysisk aktivitet – nya vägar och val i rekommendationerna för vuxna. Lakartidningen 2015; 112(47):2094.
8) Nicaise V, Crespo NC, Marshall S. Agreement between the IPAQ and accelerometer for detecting intervention-related changes in physical activity in a sample of Latina women. J Phys Act Health 2014; 11(4):846-52.
9) Helmerhorst HJF, Brage S, Warren J, Besson H, Ekelund U. A systematic review of reliability and objective criterion-related validity of physical activity questionnaires. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9:103.
10) van Poppel MN, Chinapaw MJ, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for adults. Sports Med 2010; 40(7):565-600.
11) Butte NF, Ekelund U, Westerterp KR. Assessing physical activity using wearable monitors: measures of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44(1 Suppl 1):S5-12.
12) Troiano RP. A timely meeting: objective measurement of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37(Suppl 11):S487-9.
13) Skender S, Ose J, Chang-Claude J, Paskow M, Brühmann B, Siegel EM, et al. Accelerometry and physical activity questionnaires - a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2016; 16:515.
14) Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:1-11.
15) Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35(8):1381-95.
16) Dahl-Petersen IK, Hansen AW, Bjerregaard P, Jorgensen ME, Brage S. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in the Arctic. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013; 45(4):728-36.
17) Boon RM, Hamlin MJ, Steel GD, Ross JJ. Validation of the New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire (NZPAQ-LF) and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-LF) with accelerometry. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44(10):741-6.
18) Guthold R, Ono T, Strong KL, Chatterji S, Morabia A. Worldwide variability in physical inactivity a 51-country survey. Am J Prev Med 2008; 34(6):486-94.
19) Hallal PC, Gomez LF, Parra DC, Lobelo F, Mosquera J, Florindo AA, et al. Lessons learned after 10 years of IPAQ use in Brazil and Colombia. J Phys Act Health 2010; 7(Suppl 2):S259-64.
20) Poggio R, Serón P, Calandrelli M, Ponzo J, Mores N, Matta MG, et al. Prevalence, patterns, and correlates of physical activity among the adult population in latin america: cross-sectional results from the CESCAS I study. Glob Heart 2016; 11(1):81-88.e1.
21) Rodríguez-Muñoz S, Corella C, Abarca-Sos A, Zaragoza J. Validation of three short physical activity questionnaires with accelerometers among university students in Spain. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017; 57(12):1660-8.
22) García-Puello F, Herazo-Beltrán Y, Vidarte-Claros JA, García-Jiménez R, Crissien-Quiroz E. [Physical activity level assessment in university students by direct method]. Rev Salud Pública (Bogotá) 2018; 20(5):606-11.
23) Práxedes A, Sevil J, Moreno A, del Villar F, García-González L. Niveles de actividad física en estudiantes universitarios: diferencias en función del género, la edad y los estados de cambio. Rev Iberoam Psicol Ejerc Deporte 2016; 11(1):123-32.
24) Migueles JH, Rowlands AV, Huber F, Sabia S, van Hees VT. GGIR: a research community–driven open source R package for generating physical activity and sleep outcomes from multi-day raw accelerometer data. J Meas Phys Behav 2019; 2(3):188-96.
25) Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15(2):155-63.
26) Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8(2):135-60.
27) Mantilla Toloza SC, Gómez-Conesa A. El Cuestionario Internacional de Actividad Física. Un instrumento adecuado en el seguimiento de la actividad física poblacional. Rev Iberoam Fisioter Kinesiol 2007; 10(1):48-52.
28) Maddison R, Ni Mhurchu C, Jiang Y, Vander Hoorn S, Rodgers A, Lawes CM, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and New Zealand Physical Activity Questionnaire (NZPAQ): a doubly labelled water validation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007; 4:62.
29) Hagströmer M, Oja P, Sjöström M. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutr 2006; 9(6):755-62.
30) Lacaille LJ, Dauner KN, Krambeer RJ, Pedersen J. Psychosocial and environmental determinants of eating behaviors, physical activity, and weight change among college students: a qualitative analysis. J Am Coll Health 2011; 59(6):531-8.
31) Ács P, Betlehem J, Oláh A, Bergier J, Melczer C, Prémusz V, et al. Measurement of public health benefits of physical activity: validity and reliability study of the international physical activity questionnaire in Hungary. BMC Public Health 2020; 20(Suppl 1):1198.
32) Ferrari GLM, Kovalskys I, Fisberg M, Gómez G, Rigotti A, Sanabria LYC, et al. Comparison of self-report versus accelerometer - measured physical activity and sedentary behaviors and their association with body composition in Latin American countries. PLoS One 2020; 15(4):e0232420.
33) Sebastião E, Gobbi S, Chodzko-Zajko W, Schwingel A, Papini CB, Nakamura PM, et al. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire-long form overestimates self-reported physical activity of Brazilian adults. Public Health 2012; 126(11):967-75.
34) Martins RC, Blumenberg C, da Silva ICM. Reliability and concurrent validity of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire in adults from a Brazilian rural area. Rev Bras Ativ Fís Saúde 2018; 23:1-6.
35) Terrier P, Aminian K, Schutz Y. Can accelerometry accurately predict the energy cost of uphill/downhill walking? Ergonomics 2001; 44(1):48-62.

Published

2022-06-08

How to Cite

1.
Pintos-Toledo E, Bizzozero-Peroni B, Fernández-Giménez S, Corvos CA, Brazo-Sayavera J. Device-based monitoring in physical activity versus self-report in Uruguayan university students. Rev. Méd. Urug. [Internet]. 2022 Jun. 8 [cited 2024 Sep. 7];38(2):e38205. Available from: https://revista.rmu.org.uy/index.php/rmu/article/view/883

Most read articles by the same author(s)