Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22200939›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2012

Adaptation and cognitive testing of physical activity measures for use with young, school-aged children and their parents.

Janie M Leary, Christa Ice, Lesley Cottrell

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Janie M LearyDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. jleary2@hsc.wvu.edu
Christa Ice
Lesley Cottrell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing physical activity is one way to address the public health concern of childhood obesity. Physical activity measures for use with young, school-aged children are limited.

methodsThis study adapted two existing activity measures for young children, specifically self-efficacy and 7-day recall of physical activity.

resultsThrough expert review and cognitive testing, the scales were adapted for use with young, school-aged children (ages 7-9). This article describes how the measures were adapted to insure comprehension of the child self-report measures. Reliability analyses provide support for their use in this population [Cronbach's alpha = 0.76 for the self-efficacy scale; moderate correlation between parent report and child report of child physical activity over the past week (rho = 0.52, P < 0.01].

conclusionsSuggestions are offered for researchers interested in using similar methods when designing and adapting physical activity measures for new populations.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalCognitionMotor ActivitySelf EfficacyAdolescentChildExerciseFamilyHumansObesityParentsReproducibility of ResultsSchoolsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.