Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33920145›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Comparison of Self-Reported and Device-Based Measured Physical Activity Using Measures of Stability, Reliability, and Validity in Adults and Children.

Janis Fiedler, Tobias Eckert, Alexander Burchartz, Alexander Woll, Kathrin Wunsch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Janis FiedlerInstitute of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9291-2191
Tobias EckertInstitute of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Alexander BurchartzInstitute of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1338-5395
Alexander WollInstitute of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Kathrin WunschInstitute of Sport and Sport Science, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9400-4130

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung FKZ 01EL1820
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantification of physical activity (PA) depends on the type of measurement and analysis method making it difficult to compare adherence to PA guidelines. Therefore, test-retest reliability, validity, and stability for self-reported (i.e., questionnaire and diary) and device-based measured (i.e., accelerometry with 10/60 s epochs) PA was compared in 32 adults and 32 children from the SMARTFAMILY study to examine if differences in these measurement tools are systematic. PA was collected during two separate measurement weeks and the relationship for each quality criteria was analyzed using Spearman correlation. Results showed the highest PA values for questionnaires followed by 10-s and 60-s epochs measured by accelerometers. Levels of PA were lowest when measured by diary. Only accelerometry demonstrated reliable, valid, and stable results for the two measurement weeks, the questionnaire yielded mixed results and the diary showed only a few significant correlations. Overall, higher correlations for the quality criteria were found for moderate than for vigorous PA and the results differed between children and adults. Since the differences were not found to be systematic, the choice of measurement tools should be carefully considered by anyone working with PA outcomes, especially if vigorous PA is the parameter of interest.

Indexed as

AccelerometryExerciseAdultChildHumansReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnairesdevice-based measuredphysical activityreliabilityself-reportstabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID33920145
PMCPMC8069485

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.