↓ 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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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, on behalf of the Seniors USP team

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 16%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 35 19%
Unknown 60 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 13%
Sports and Recreations 24 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 86 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 20 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,328,980
of 25,366,663 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#465
of 2,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,802
of 336,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,366,663 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 336,732 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 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.