Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered

被引:114
|
作者
Kelly, Paul [1 ]
Fitzsimons, Claire [1 ]
Baker, Graham [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Edinburgh, Phys Act Hlth Res Ctr, Inst Sport Phys Educ & Hlth Sci, Edinburgh, Midlothian, Scotland
关键词
Physical activity; Sedentary behaviour; Measurement; Validity; Reliability; Framework; SELF-REPORT MEASURES; ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRES; WALKING; ADULTS; TRAVEL;
D O I
10.1186/s12966-016-0351-4
中图分类号
R15 [营养卫生、食品卫生]; TS201 [基础科学];
学科分类号
100403 ;
摘要
Background: The measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SB) is fundamental to health related research, policy, and practice but there are well known challenges to these measurements. Within the academic literature, the terms "validity" and "reliability" are frequently used when discussing PA and SB measurement to reassure the reader that they can trust the evidence. Discussion: In this paper we argue that a lack of consensus about the best way to define, assess, or utilize the concepts of validity and reliability has led to inconsistencies and confusion within the PA and SB evidence base. Where possible we propose theoretical examples and solutions. Moreover we present an overarching framework (The Edinburgh Framework) which we believe will provide a process or pathway to help researchers and practitioners consider validity and reliability in a standardized way. Conclusion: Further work is required to identify all necessary and available solutions and generate consensus in our field to develop the Edinburgh Framework into a useful practical resource. We envisage that ultimately the proposed framework will benefit research, practice, policy, and teaching. We welcome critique, rebuttal, comment, and discussion on all ideas presented.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behaviour measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered
    Paul Kelly
    Claire Fitzsimons
    Graham Baker
    [J]. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13
  • [2] Comment on “Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behavior measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered”
    Caroline B. Terwee
    L. B. Mokkink
    L. M. Hidding
    T. M. Altenburg
    M. N. van Poppel
    M. J. M. Chinapaw
    [J]. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13
  • [3] Comment on "Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behavior measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered"
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Mokkink, L. B.
    Hidding, L. M.
    Altenburg, T. M.
    van Poppel, M. N.
    Chinapaw, M. J. M.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL NUTRITION AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, 2016, 13
  • [4] How Should We Think about Espionage?
    Lee, Youngjae
    [J]. ANALYSIS, 2024,
  • [5] How Should We Think about Privacy?
    Lanier, Jaron
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 2013, 309 (05) : 64 - 71
  • [6] HOW SHOULD WE THINK ABOUT THEORY
    HARRIS, B
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING A, 1984, 16 (02) : 143 - 145
  • [7] How Should We Think About the Ribosome?
    Moore, Peter B.
    [J]. ANNUAL REVIEW OF BIOPHYSICS, VOL 41, 2012, 41 : 1 - 19
  • [8] Introduction: How should we think about corruption?
    Hindess, Barry
    [J]. CORRUPTION: EXPANDING THE FOCUS, 2012, : 1 - 24
  • [9] How should we think about linguistic function?
    Thomasson, Amie L.
    [J]. INQUIRY-AN INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2024, 67 (03): : 840 - 871
  • [10] How should we think about employers' associations?
    Bryson, Alex
    Willman, Paul
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 2024, 62 (02) : 193 - 205