Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27542603›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Is self-reporting workplace activity worthwhile? Validity and reliability of occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire in desk-based workers.

Scott J Pedersen, Cecilia M Kitic, Marie-Louise Bird, Casey P Mainsbridge, P Dean Cooley

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Genetic variants related to physical activity or sedentary behaviour: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Validity of Three Survey Questions for Self-Assessed Sedentary Time.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Classifying sitting, standing, and walking using plantar force data.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Scott J PedersenActive Work Laboratory, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Newnham Dr., Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia. scott.pedersen@utas.edu.au.
Cecilia M KiticSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Marie-Louise BirdSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
Casey P MainsbridgeActive Work Laboratory, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Newnham Dr., Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia.
P Dean CooleyActive Work Laboratory, Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Newnham Dr., Launceston, TAS 7250, Australia.
University of Tasmania · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the advent of workplace health and wellbeing programs designed to address prolonged occupational sitting, tools to measure behaviour change within this environment should derive from empirical evidence. In this study we measured aspects of validity and reliability for the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire that asks employees to recount the percentage of work time they spend in the seated, standing, and walking postures during a typical workday.

methodsThree separate cohort samples (N = 236) were drawn from a population of government desk-based employees across several departmental agencies. These volunteers were part of a larger state-wide intervention study. Workplace sitting and physical activity behaviour was measured both subjectively against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and objectively against ActivPal accelerometers before the intervention began. Criterion validity and concurrent validity for each of the three posture categories were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, and a bias comparison with 95 % limits of agreement. Test-retest reliability of the survey was reported with intraclass correlation coefficients.

resultsCriterion validity for this survey was strong for sitting and standing estimates, but weak for walking. Participants significantly overestimated the amount of walking they did at work. Concurrent validity was moderate for sitting and standing, but low for walking. Test-retest reliability of this survey proved to be questionable for our sample.

conclusionsBased on our findings we must caution occupational health and safety professionals about the use of employee self-report data to estimate workplace physical activity. While the survey produced accurate measurements for time spent sitting at work it was more difficult for employees to estimate their workplace physical activity.

Indexed as

ExerciseOccupational HealthPostureSedentary BehaviorSelf ReportWorkplaceAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccupationsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesWalkingExercisePhysical activitySitting behaviourWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID27542603
PMCPMC4992189
OpenAlexW2507640136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.