Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29672534›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Reliability and validity of the international physical activity questionnaire compared to calibrated accelerometer cut-off points in the quantification of sedentary behaviour and physical activity in older adults.

Declan J Ryan, Jorgen A Wullems, Georgina K Stebbings, Christopher I Morse, Claire E Stewart, Gladys L Onambele-Pearson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Assisted Living Residents: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Longitudinal Study.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Declan J RyanHealth Exercise & Active Living Research Centre, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1769-3248
Jorgen A WullemsHealth Exercise & Active Living Research Centre, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, United Kingdom.
Georgina K StebbingsHealth Exercise & Active Living Research Centre, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, United Kingdom.
Christopher I MorseHealth Exercise & Active Living Research Centre, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, United Kingdom.
Claire E StewartResearch Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Gladys L Onambele-PearsonHealth Exercise & Active Living Research Centre, Department of Exercise & Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Cheshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim was to determine the reliability and validity of IPAQ measured sedentary behaviour (SB) and moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in older persons whilst examining any sex differences in reliability and validity results.

method89 participants (73.7 ± 6.3 years, 54% female) completed the IPAQ. Participants were fitted with a thigh mounted triaxial accelerometer (GeneActiv Original) for seven consecutive days and subsequently completed a second IPAQ.

resultsIPAQ showed weak reliability qualities for Total SB (h·week-1) and 10 minute MVPA (accumulated in bouts ≥ 10 continuous minutes, h·week-1). IPAQ had poor concurrent validity qualities for Total SB, 10 minute MVPA, but not Sporadic MVPA (accumulated in bouts < 10 continuous minutes, h·week-1). IPAQ only categorised participant physical behaviour classification correctly 2% of the time. Sex differences were only present for the correlation slope of IPAQ 10 minute MVPA reliability measures.

conclusionOur data suggests that the IPAQ is not suitable for assessing older adults habitual physical behaviour.

Indexed as

AccelerometryExerciseSedentary BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID29672534
PMCPMC5908192

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.