SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2020
Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 6 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
48 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Validity and reliability of self-reported methods for assessment of 24-h movement behaviours: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- What works to reduce sedentary behavior in the office, and could these intervention components transfer to the home working environment?: A rapid review and transferability appraisal.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Pooled it
- Socioeconomic Inequalities in Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour among the Chilean Population: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled 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
- Factors Associated With Leisure Time Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Young Women 2-7 Years After Delivery of a Pregnancy in the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2026Article
- Ubiquitous Non-Wearable Sensor for Human Sedentary Behavior Monitoring and Characterization.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bidirectional reallocations of sitting time, physical activity, and sleep in relation to risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: An analysis of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE)-China cohort study.Journal of sport and health science · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of a Self-administered Questionnaire for 24-hour Movement Behaviors.Journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Sedentary behavior as an emerging risk factor for chronic kidney disease: a narrative review.Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2026Review
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Physical Activity Interventions in Colorectal Cancer Survivors: An Evidence Evaluation Attempt Across Racial/Ethnic Groups.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Leisure Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Cardiovascular Health 2-7 yr after Pregnancy in the nuMoM2b Heart Health Study Cohort.Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2025Article
- Towards Optimal Health Through Boredom Aversion Based on Experiencing Psychological Flow in a Self-Directed Exercise Regime-A Scoping Review of Recent Research.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Reliability and validity of time-use surveys in assessing 24-hour movement behaviors in adults.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2025Article
- Association of sitting time with cardiovascular events among manual and non-manual workers: a prospective cohort study (PURE-China).BMC public health · 2025Article
- Adaptation of LASA sedentary behaviour questionnaire into Turkish and examination of its psychometric properties in elderly individuals.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Trends in Cancer-Screening Rates in Korea: Findings from the National Cancer Screening Survey, 2004-2023.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Harmonizing measurement tools: examining the concurrent validity of the Daily Activity Behaviors Questionnaire compared to the ActiGraph to assess 24-hour movement behaviors among adults.BMC public health · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods.
methodsThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity.
resultsThe systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good.
conclusionLogs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105994.
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.