Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Single versus multi-item self-assessment of sedentary behaviour: A comparison with objectively measured sedentary time in nurses.

OBJECTIVES: To compare sedentary time (ST) measured by self-report using a single question from the short-form International Physical Activity Questionnaire (SF-IPAQ), 18-items from the Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) and objectively using an accelerometer among a large sample of nurses.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional.

METHODS: Participants wore an ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer (≥4 days, ≥10h/day) and self-reported usual day sitting using the IPAQ and sitting in different modes using the SBQ. Measures were compared using correlations, a Friedman test with Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests for pairwise comparisons, linear regression and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS: A total of 313 nurses (95% female; mean±SD: age=43±12 years) from 14 hospitals participated. Participants self-reported sitting for a median of 240min/day using the SF-IPAQ and 328min/day using the SBQ. Median ST measured by the ActiGraph was 434min/day. All measures were weakly correlated with each other (ρ=0.31-40, ps<0.001). Limits of agreement were wide between all measures. Significant proportional bias between the ActiGraph and the SF-IPAQ and SBQ existed, suggesting that with greater amounts of ST, there is greater disagreement between the self-report and objective measures.

CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of nurses, self-reported ST using the SF-IPAQ and SBQ was significantly lower than that measured by accelerometer. A single-item tool performed more poorly than a multi-item questionnaire. Future studies should consider including both objective and self-report measures of ST, and where possible use a tool that quantifies ST across multiple domains, define a 'usual day' and are meaningful for those with daily schedule variations such as among shift-worker populations.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app