SynthesisPloS one2024
Validity, reliability, and readability of single-item and short physical activity questionnaires for use in surveillance: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leisure-Time Physical Activity, Sleep, and Self-Perception of Health During the COVID-19 Lockdown in Québec.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Criterion and Convergent Validity of Youth Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaires in School Settings: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Association between neighborhood socionatural environments and health satisfaction: a longitudinal mediation analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exercise Perceptions, Barriers, and Self-Efficacy Among Adults in Kuwait During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- The dominance of leisure-time physical activity research: implications for health inequalities.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Exploring the impact of revised physical activity guidelines on children and adolescents: an analysis of large Australian and New Zealand studies.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of a single question for assessment of habitual physical activity in women.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Linking health lifestyle classes to blue-collar workers' participation in worksite health promotion programs in freight transport: a latent class analysis.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2025Article
- Physical activity and physical activity promotion in Germany - An overview.Journal of health monitoring · 2025Article
- Temporal Trends in Cardiovascular Health Metrics in Italy, 2015-2024: A Ten-Year Report from the Longevity Check-Up (Lookup) 8+ Study.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate and fast measurement of physical activity is important for surveillance. Even though many physical activity questionnaires (PAQ) are currently used in research, it is unclear which of them is the most reliable, valid, and easy to use. This systematic review aimed to identify existing brief PAQs, describe and compare their measurement properties, and assess their level of readability.
methodsWe performed a systematic review based on the PRISMA statement. Literature searches were conducted in six scientific databases. Articles were included if they evaluated validity and/or reliability of brief (i.e., with a maximum of three questions) physical activity or exercise questionnaires intended for healthy adults. Due to the heterogeneity of studies, data were summarized narratively. The level of readability was calculated according to the Flesch-Kincaid formula.
resultsIn total, 35 articles published in English or Spanish were included, evaluating 32 distinct brief PAQs. The studies indicated moderate to good levels of reliability for the PAQs. However, the majority of results showed weak validity when validated against device-based measurements and demonstrated weak to moderate validity when validated against other PAQs. Most of the assessed PAQs met the criterion of being "short," allowing respondents to complete them in less than one minute either by themselves or with an interviewer. However, only 17 questionnaires had a readability level that indicates that the PAQ is easy to understand for the majority of the population.
conclusionsThis review identified a variety of brief PAQs, but most of them were evaluated in only a single study. Validity and reliability of short and long questionnaires are found to be at a comparable level, short PAQs can be recommended for use in surveillance systems. However, the methods used to assess measurement properties varied widely across studies, limiting the comparability between different PAQs and making it challenging to identify a single tool as the most suitable. None of the evaluated brief PAQs allowed for the measurement of whether a person fulfills current WHO physical activity guidelines. Future development or adaptation of PAQs should prioritize readability as an important factor to enhance their usability.
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.