Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28316789›Full record

ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2017

Reliability and concurrent validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form among pregnant women.

Birgitte Sanda, Ingvild Vistad, Lene Annette Hagen Haakstad, Sveinung Berntsen, Linda Reme Sagedal, Hilde Lohne-Seiler, Monica Klungland Torstveit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Evaluating physical activity questionnaires for postpartum women.Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Physical activity during pregnancy: key beliefs to support intervention.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2025
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Birgitte SandaFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-9290-5736
Ingvild VistadDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Southern Norway Hospital Trust, Kristiansand, Norway.
Lene Annette Hagen HaakstadNorwegian School of Sports Science, Oslo, Norway.
Sveinung BerntsenFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.
Linda Reme SagedalDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Southern Norway Hospital Trust, Kristiansand, Norway.
Hilde Lohne-SeilerFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.
Monica Klungland TorstveitFaculty of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Agder, P.O. Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway.
University of Agder · NOHospital of Southern Norway · NONorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractSanda B, Vistad I, Haakstad LAH, Berntsen S, Sagedal LR, Lohne-Seiler H, Torstveit MK. Reliability and concurrent validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form among pregnant women.

backgroundThe International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ-SF) is frequently used to assess physical activity (PA) level in the general adult population including pregnant women. However, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire in pregnancy is unknown. Therefore, the aims of the present study were to investigate test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of IPAQ-SF among pregnant women, and whether PA is reported differently among those who fulfill (active) vs. do not fulfill (inactive) recommendations of ≥150 min of weekly moderate intensity PA in pregnancy.

methodTest-retest reliability was examined by answering IPAQ-SF twice, two weeks apart (

resultsTest-retest intraclass-correlation of MPA, VPA and MVPA ranged from 0.81-0.84 (95% Confidence Intervals: 0.69,0.90). Comparing time spent performing PA at various intensities; the mean differences and limits of agreement (±1.96 Standard Deviation) from Bland-Altman plots were-84 ± 402 min/week for MPA,-85 ± 452 min/week for MVPA and 26 ± 78 min/week for VPA, illustrating that the total group under-reported MPA by 72% and MVPA by 52%, while VPA was over-reported by 1400%. For the inactive group corresponding numbers were 44 ± 327 min/week for MPA, 52 ± 355 min/week for MVPA and 16 ± 33 min/week for VPA, illustrating that the inactive group over-reported MPA by 13% and MVPA by 49%, while VPA was not detected by SWA, but participants reported 16 min of VPA/week. In contrast, corresponding numbers for the active group were-197 ± 326 min/week for MPA,-205 ± 396 min/week for MVPA and 35 ± 85 min/week for VPA, illustrating that the active group under-reported MPA by 81% and MVPA by 60%, while they over-reported VPA by 975%.

conclusionIPAQ-SF had good test-retest reliability, but low to fair concurrent validity for MPA, VPA and MVPA compared to an objective criterion measure among pregnant women. Further, women fulfilling PA guidelines in pregnancy under-reported, while inactive women over-reported PA level.

Indexed as

Activity assessmentActivity monitorExerciseIPAQ-SFPhysical activityPregnancySelf-reported questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID28316789
PMCPMC5351171
OpenAlexW2595358727

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.