Trial reportJournal of physical activity & health2022
Evaluation of Electronic and Pen-and-Paper Formats of the Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers: A Randomized Crossover Study.
Trial report in Journal of physical activity & health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incorporating Physical Activity Assessments and Behavior Change Techniques Into Geriatrics.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023Article
- Examining physical activity participation barriers among adults 50 years and older: a scoping review.Physical therapy reviews : PTR · 2023Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers (IPAB) assesses physical activity participation barriers. Development, refinement, and psychometric evaluation of the IPAB occurred via an electronic format. However, various circumstances may require using a pen-and-paper format. As instrument formats are not always interchangeable, the authors aimed to establish whether 2 different formats (electronic and pen and paper) can be used interchangeably for the IPAB.
methodsThis randomized crossover study included 66 community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older (mean age = 73 [SD = 7.6]). Half the sample completed the electronic format of the IPAB first and the pen-and-paper format second, and the other half completed them in reverse order. Tests of equivalence and a Bland-Altman plot were performed.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficient between formats was .94, and kappa was .68. The mean difference between the 2 administration forms of the IPAB was 0.002 (P = .96). Both administration formats had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .92 and .93) and illustrated construct validity (P ≤ .001 for both administration formats).
conclusionPen-and-paper and electronic formats of the IPAB are equivalent and, thus, can be used interchangeably among non-Hispanic whites who are highly educated. The format should be used consistently if completing preintervention and postintervention evaluations or comparing scores.
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.