↓ Skip to main content

Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12966-018-0652-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. F. M. Chastin, M. L. Dontje, D. A. Skelton, I. Čukić, R. J. Shaw, J. M. R. Gill, C. A. Greig, C. R. Gale, I. J. Deary, G. Der, P. M. Dall

Abstract

Sedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor. Cross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss. All self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics. Self-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 18%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 8 7%
Professor 8 7%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 19%
Sports and Recreations 14 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Psychology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 48 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2019.
All research outputs
#715,558
of 16,098,805 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#300
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,476
of 279,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,098,805 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,105 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them