Trial reportBMC public health2020
Show cards of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) - do they impact validity? A crossover study.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Validity and Reliability of IPAQ-SF and GPAQ for Assessing Sedentary Behaviour in Adults in the European Union: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Validity and Reliability of International Physical Activity Questionnaires for Adults across EU Countries: Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Insufficient physical activity and diabetes mellitus prevalence in Iran: an estimated population attributable fraction analysis using STEPS 2021 data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Differential associations of physical activity and exercise to physical fitness.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Hypertension and Elevated Pulse Pressure Responsive to Biomass Pollutants Exposures in Young Workers From the Democratic Republic of Congo: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Article
- Different associations of occupational and leisure-time physical activity with the prevalence of hypertension among middle-aged community dwellers in rural Khánh Hòa, Vietnam.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Survey of emergency medicine doctors in London physical activity characteristics, awareness of guidelines and prescribing behaviours.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2023Article
- Reliability and Validity of Slovenian Versions of IPAQ-SF, GPAQ, and EHIS-PAQ for Assessing Physical Activity and Sedentarism of Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- History of vigorous leisure-time physical activity and early onset amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), data from the national ALS registry: 2010-2018.Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) is applied internationally as a tool to assess the level of physical activity. The GPAQ was designed as an interview, including the use of show cards, which visualise activities of moderate and intensive physical activity and support the distinction between these intensities. The self-administered version of the GPAQ is used in the application-oriented research for reasons of economy and practicality. However, the use of show cards often remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to examine differences in validity between two self-administered versions of the GPAQ with and without show cards.
methodsIn this crossover study, two groups (n = 54; 57.4% female; 28.3 ± 12.2 years) received the GPAQ with or without show cards after 7 days and the respective other version after additional 7 days. For validation, all participants wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X+) on all 14 days. Differences between GPAQ versions and accelerometer data were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Additionally, Spearman analyses and Bland-Altman plots were calculated.
resultsNo statistically significant difference between the GPAQ versions could be found in regard to the accuracy of physical activity assessment (p > 0.05). Both GPAQ versions show similar correlation coefficients for vigorous physical activity (rho = 0.31-0.42) and sedentary behaviour (rho = 0.29-0.32). No statistically significant correlation was found for physical activity of moderate intensity. The Bland-Altman plots support these results, as both GPAQ versions have the same trends in terms of overestimation and underestimation of physical activity.
conclusionThe use of show cards had no significant impact on questionnaire validity. Therefore, both GPAQ versions can be applied interchangeably. Nevertheless the exact description of application of the GPAQ is desirable in terms of reproducibility and transparent scientific research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.