![]() ![]() Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower. Practice: Ask several friends to complete the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The assessment of reliability and validity is an ongoing process. The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. The reliability and validity of a measure is not established by any single study but by the pattern of results across multiple studies. In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). ![]() In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA. In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. ![]() The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |