Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38654342›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2024

Reliability and validity of rapid assessment tools for measuring 24-hour movement behaviours in children aged 0-5 years: the Movement Behaviour Questionnaire Baby (MBQ-B) and child (MBQ-C).

Stewart G Trost, Caroline O Terranova, Denise S K Brookes, Li Kheng Chai, Rebecca A Byrne

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Validity of the PROMISThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stewart G TrostSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. s.trost@uq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9587-3944
Caroline O TerranovaSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Denise S K BrookesSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Li Kheng ChaiSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Rebecca A ByrneSchool of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Queensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DE230101053National Health and Medical Research Council APP1101675
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of validated "fit-for-purpose" rapid assessment tools to measure 24-hour movement behaviours in children aged 0-5 years is a research priority. This study evaluated the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the open-ended and closed-ended versions of the Movement Behaviour Questionnaire for baby (MBQ-B) and child (MBQ-C).

methods300 parent-child dyads completed the 10-day study protocol (MBQ-B: N = 85; MBQ-C: N = 215). To assess validity, children wore an accelerometer on the non-dominant wrist (ActiGraph GT3X+) for 7 days and parents completed 2 × 24-hour time use diaries (TUDs) recording screen time and sleep on two separate days. For babies (i.e., not yet walking), parents completed 2 × 24-hour TUDs recording tummy time, active play, restrained time, screen time, and sleep on days 2 and 5 of the 7-day monitoring period. To assess test-retest reliability, parents were randomised to complete either the open- or closed-ended versions of the MBQ on day 7 and on day 10. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC's) were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and validity was assessed via Spearman correlations.

resultsTest-retest reliability for the MBQ-B was good to excellent with ICC's ranging from 0.80 to 0.94 and 0.71-0.93 for the open- and closed-ended versions, respectively. For both versions, significant positive correlations were observed between 24-hour diary and MBQ-B reported tummy time, active play, restrained time, screen time, and sleep (rho = 0.39-0.87). Test-retest reliability for the MBQ-C was moderate to excellent with ICC's ranging from 0.68 to 0.98 and 0.44-0.97 for the open- and closed-ended versions, respectively. For both the open- and closed-ended versions, significant positive correlations were observed between 24-hour diary and MBQ-C reported screen time and sleep (rho = 0.44-0.86); and between MBQ-C reported and device-measured time in total activity and energetic play (rho = 0.27-0.42).

conclusionsThe MBQ-B and MBQ-C are valid and reliable rapid assessment tools for assessing 24-hour movement behaviours in infants, toddlers, and pre-schoolers. Both the open- and closed-ended versions of the MBQ are suitable for research conducted for policy and practice purposes, including the evaluation of scaled-up early obesity prevention programs.

Indexed as

ParentsSleepAccelerometryChild BehaviorChild, PreschoolExerciseFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMovementReproducibility of ResultsScreen TimeSedentary BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesActive playAssessmentInfantsPhysical activityPreschoolersScreen timeSelf-reportSleepSurveyToddlers

Identifiers

PMID38654342
PMCPMC11041005
OpenAlexW4395050668

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.