葡萄牙成年人全球体育活动问卷的可靠性和有效性。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Perceptual and Motor Skills Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.1177/00315125241266341
Mariana Ribeiro, Elisabete Fernandes, Mariana Borges, Madalena Pires, Xavier Melo, Fausto J Pinto, Ana Abreu, Rita Pinto
{"title":"葡萄牙成年人全球体育活动问卷的可靠性和有效性。","authors":"Mariana Ribeiro, Elisabete Fernandes, Mariana Borges, Madalena Pires, Xavier Melo, Fausto J Pinto, Ana Abreu, Rita Pinto","doi":"10.1177/00315125241266341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) has been used often to assess physical activity (PA) patterns. However, the European Portuguese version of this instrument has not been validated. We aimed to validate the self-administered GPAQ, version 2, (GPAQv2) for Portuguese adults. We included 32 participants in a pilot study of a Portuguese adaptation of the test and 108 participants in an assessment of their PA patterns and sedentary behavior (SB) through the GPAQv2. For its validation, we compared the GPAQv2 to the International PA Questionnaire-Long Form (IPAQ-LF) (concurrent validity) and the <i>ActiGraph wGT3X-BT</i> accelerometer (criterion validity). We evaluated PA and SB at baseline and after seven consecutive days. Test-retest reliability with the Kappa test (k) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) ranged from strong to almost perfect (k: 0.864-0.976) and from moderate to excellent (ICC: 0.56-0.994), respectively. Concurrent validity, assessed by Spearman's Correlation Coefficient, was moderate to substantial (<i>rho</i>: 0.471-0.680), and there was fair to substantial criterion validity (<i>rho</i>: 0.226-0.672). Bland-Altman plots showed that the GPAQv2 overestimated vigorous and moderate to vigorous PA and underestimated moderate PA. The largest difference values were related to SB, since the GPAQv2 underestimated sitting time. In sum, we found the GPAQv2 to have acceptable validity and reliability for assessing PA and SB patterns, and we recommend its use for Portuguese adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":19869,"journal":{"name":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Validity of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire for Portuguese Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Ribeiro, Elisabete Fernandes, Mariana Borges, Madalena Pires, Xavier Melo, Fausto J Pinto, Ana Abreu, Rita Pinto\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00315125241266341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) has been used often to assess physical activity (PA) patterns. However, the European Portuguese version of this instrument has not been validated. We aimed to validate the self-administered GPAQ, version 2, (GPAQv2) for Portuguese adults. We included 32 participants in a pilot study of a Portuguese adaptation of the test and 108 participants in an assessment of their PA patterns and sedentary behavior (SB) through the GPAQv2. For its validation, we compared the GPAQv2 to the International PA Questionnaire-Long Form (IPAQ-LF) (concurrent validity) and the <i>ActiGraph wGT3X-BT</i> accelerometer (criterion validity). We evaluated PA and SB at baseline and after seven consecutive days. Test-retest reliability with the Kappa test (k) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) ranged from strong to almost perfect (k: 0.864-0.976) and from moderate to excellent (ICC: 0.56-0.994), respectively. Concurrent validity, assessed by Spearman's Correlation Coefficient, was moderate to substantial (<i>rho</i>: 0.471-0.680), and there was fair to substantial criterion validity (<i>rho</i>: 0.226-0.672). Bland-Altman plots showed that the GPAQv2 overestimated vigorous and moderate to vigorous PA and underestimated moderate PA. The largest difference values were related to SB, since the GPAQv2 underestimated sitting time. In sum, we found the GPAQv2 to have acceptable validity and reliability for assessing PA and SB patterns, and we recommend its use for Portuguese adults.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perceptual and Motor Skills\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241266341\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241266341","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球体力活动问卷(GPAQ)经常被用来评估体力活动(PA)模式。然而,该工具的欧洲葡萄牙语版本尚未经过验证。我们的目的是验证葡萄牙成年人的自填式 GPAQ 第 2 版(GPAQv2)。我们将 32 名参与者纳入了葡萄牙语改编测试的试点研究,并通过 GPAQv2 对 108 名参与者的 PA 模式和久坐行为(SB)进行了评估。为了验证 GPAQv2 的有效性,我们将其与国际 PA 问卷长表(IPAQ-LF)(并发有效性)和 ActiGraph wGT3X-BT 加速计(标准有效性)进行了比较。我们在基线和连续七天后对 PA 和 SB 进行了评估。使用卡帕检验(Kappa)和类内相关系数(ICC)进行的重测可靠性分别从强到几乎完美(K:0.864-0.976)和从中等到优秀(ICC:0.56-0.994)不等。根据斯皮尔曼相关系数(Spearman's Correlation Coefficient)评估,并发效度为中度到高度(rho:0.471-0.680),标准效度为中度到高度(rho:0.226-0.672)。Bland-Altman 图显示,GPAQv2 高估了剧烈运动和中度至剧烈运动,低估了中度运动。最大的差异值与SB有关,因为GPAQv2低估了久坐时间。总之,我们发现 GPAQv2 在评估 PA 和 SB 模式方面具有可接受的有效性和可靠性,建议葡萄牙成年人使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability and Validity of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire for Portuguese Adults.

The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) has been used often to assess physical activity (PA) patterns. However, the European Portuguese version of this instrument has not been validated. We aimed to validate the self-administered GPAQ, version 2, (GPAQv2) for Portuguese adults. We included 32 participants in a pilot study of a Portuguese adaptation of the test and 108 participants in an assessment of their PA patterns and sedentary behavior (SB) through the GPAQv2. For its validation, we compared the GPAQv2 to the International PA Questionnaire-Long Form (IPAQ-LF) (concurrent validity) and the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer (criterion validity). We evaluated PA and SB at baseline and after seven consecutive days. Test-retest reliability with the Kappa test (k) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) ranged from strong to almost perfect (k: 0.864-0.976) and from moderate to excellent (ICC: 0.56-0.994), respectively. Concurrent validity, assessed by Spearman's Correlation Coefficient, was moderate to substantial (rho: 0.471-0.680), and there was fair to substantial criterion validity (rho: 0.226-0.672). Bland-Altman plots showed that the GPAQv2 overestimated vigorous and moderate to vigorous PA and underestimated moderate PA. The largest difference values were related to SB, since the GPAQv2 underestimated sitting time. In sum, we found the GPAQv2 to have acceptable validity and reliability for assessing PA and SB patterns, and we recommend its use for Portuguese adults.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Perceptual and Motor Skills PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
110
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信