Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32584830›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Responsiveness of the single item measure to detect change in physical activity.

Paul O'Halloran, Michael Kingsley, Matthew Nicholson, Kiera Staley, Erica Randle, Annemarie Wright, Adrian Bauman

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

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Paul O'HalloranSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University Bundoora Australia, Bundoora, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6495-2359
Michael KingsleyCentre for Sport and Social Impact, La Trobe University Bundoora Australia, Bundoora, Australia.
Matthew NicholsonCentre for Sport and Social Impact, La Trobe University Bundoora Australia, Bundoora, Australia.
Kiera StaleyCentre for Sport and Social Impact, La Trobe University Bundoora Australia, Bundoora, Australia.
Erica RandleCentre for Sport and Social Impact, La Trobe University Bundoora Australia, Bundoora, Australia.
Annemarie WrightVictorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Carlton, Australia.
Adrian BaumanSchool of Public Health Sydney University Australia, Sydney, Australia.
La Trobe University · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Auckland · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of the single item measure (SIM) to detect change in PA when compared to hip-worn accelerometry. A secondary aim was to provide further data on validity of the measure at a single time point.

methodsValidity of the SIM to determine the number of days of ≥30 minutes of accelerometer-derived moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was assessed in 120 participants (78% female, 19% male, 3% other; age: 46 ± 11 years). Analysis of change was based on change in the number of days that participants completed ≥30 minutes of MVPA determined by the SIM and accelerometry over two 7-day periods in 90 participants (age: 47±11 years). Accelerometer data were analysed as total minutes of MVPA per day (MVPA-total) and as sustained bouts of 10 minutes or more of MVPA (MVPA-bouts). Validity of the SIM to detect change in MVPA, using accelerometer data as the reference measurement, was examined through Spearman's correlation and agreement in classification of change between SIM and accelerometry. Responsiveness to change was assessed by standardised response means and Cohen's d.

resultsStandardised response means for PA change were moderate for the SIM (0.77), MVPA-total (0.57) and MVPA-bouts (0.79). The correlation for change in number of days ≥30 minutes MVPA between the SIM and accelerometry were small to moderate (MVPA-total: r = 0.36 and MVP-bouts: r = 0.40). The SIM displayed moderate accuracy (60%-63%), using accelerometer data as the reference measurement, in detecting increases in days ≥30 minutes of MVPA.

conclusionThe SIM is a potentially useful assessment tool for evaluating change in MVPA, particularly when device-based measures or longer self-report measures are not feasible.

Indexed as

AccelerometryAdultAustraliaExerciseFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID32584830
PMCPMC7316312
OpenAlexW3037583550

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.