SynthesisPloS one2025
Physical activity measurement tools among college students in intervention studies: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Autonomy support in physical education and university students' physical activity: indirect and conditional associations through motivation and environmental support.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Resting HRV Sample Entropy Predicts the Magnitude of Post-Exercise Vagal Withdrawal in Young Adults.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessing the impact of interventions on college students' physical activity (PA) requires the use of reliable and valid measurement tools. However, the tools employed in existing studies and their respective reliability and validity are not well-documented. This review aims to systematically evaluate the PA measurement tools utilized in interventions targeting college students and to assess the quality of their measurement properties.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across five databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycInfo) to identify studies on PA interventions among college students, using specific inclusion criteria. The screening of literature and data extraction were independently performed by two authors, focusing on the types of PA measurements used and their measurement properties.
resultsA total of 52 studies, involving 63 different PA measurement tools, were included. Of these, 28 studies used self-report tools, 14 employed objective tools (with one study using two different objective tools), and 10 combined both methods. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) emerged as the most frequently used self-report tool, while pedometers and accelerometers were the primary objective tools. Despite frequent references to reliability and validity, few studies provided specific evidence regarding measurement properties such as internal consistency and criterion validity, particularly those tailored to the studied population.
conclusionThe majority of PA measurement tools for college students rely on self-reported data, with limited verification of their reliability and validity. For a more accurate assessment of PA intervention effects, it is recommended to adapt the widely recognized IPAQ to specific contexts and incorporate objective tools like accelerometers, which offer practical and precise measurement within college settings.
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.