Standardized Surveys of Walking & Bicylcing Database:
|
|
|
List of Validation Studies of Physical Activity Questionnaires Containing Walking/Bicycling Questions
- Table 1. Validation Studies of the Ainsworth New Physical Activity Questionnaire (N-PAQ)
- Table 2. Validation Studies of the Arizona Activity Frequency Questionnaire (AAFQ)
- Table 3. Validation Studies of the Allied Dunbar National Fitness Survey (ADNFS)
- Table 4. Auckland Heart Study (AHS) Physical Activity Questionnaire
- Table 5. Validation Studies of the Baecke Activity Questionnaire (BAQ)
- Table 6. Modified Baecke Questionnaire (MBAQ)
- Table 7. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System - New Walking Module
- Table 8. Campbell Survey on Well-Being in Canada Physical Activity Monitor (PAM)
- Table 9. Central Sweden Physical Activity Questionnaire (CSPAQ)
- Table 10. CARDIA Physical Activity Questionnaire
- Table 11. CHAMPS Activities Questionnaire for Older Adults
- Table 12. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Physical Activity Questions
- Table 13. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition - Norfolk (EPIC2) Physical Activity Questions
- Table 14a. Health Insurance Plan of New York City (HIP) Activity Questionnaire
- Table 14b. Historical Leisure Activity Questionnaire (HLAQ)
- Table 15. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)
- Table 16. Kaiser Physical Activity Survey (KPAS)
- Table 17. Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA)-Physical Activity Questionnaire (LAPAQ)
- Table 18. Minnesota Leisure-time Physical activity questionnaire (MLTPAQ)
- Table 19. The Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ)/Pima Indian Questionnaire
- Table 20. The MONICA Optional Study of Physical Activity (MOSPA-Q)
- Table 21. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) - walking questions
- Table 22. Nurses Health Study II Activity and Inactivity Questionnaire (NHS II-PAQ)
- Table 23. One-Page Questionnaire of Physical activity (VITAL - study)
- Table 24. Perceived Functional Ability (PFA) Questionnaire/Physical Activity Rating (PA-R) Questionnaire
- Table 25. Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire/College Alumnus Questionnaire (CAQ)
- Table 26. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE)
- Table 27. Physical Activity Scale (PAS)
- Table 28. Postmenopausal Osteopenia PAQ (Activity Questionnaire-AQ)
- Table 29. Quantitative physical activity recall questions (QPAR) - Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study - 1982 and baseline
- Table 30. The Short Questionnaire to assess Health-enhancing Physical activity (SQUASH)
- Table 31. Stanford Usual Physical Activity Questionnaire (SUPAQ)
- Table 32. Techumseh Occupational Physical Activity Questionnaire (TOQ)
- Table 33. Walking Adherence Questionnaire
- Table 34. Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS)
- Table 35. Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire (ZPAQ)
- Abbreviations of Terms
- References
Table 1. Validation Studies of the Ainsworth New Physical Activity Questionnaire (N-PAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Ainsworth et al, 2000(1) |
Relationships between N-PAQ and PA log (PAL), CSA monitor derived counts/d and moderate intensity scores using equations from: Freedson-F, Hendelman-H and Schwartz-S (Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficients) |
83 adults (38 men and 45 women); ages NS |
| N-PAQ |
F |
H |
S |
CSA c/d |
PAL |
| Non-occupational walking |
0.41** |
0.05 |
0.11 |
0.28* |
0.38** |
| Non-occupational walking +moderate |
0.26* |
0.11 |
0.19 |
0.26* |
0.54** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 2. Validation Studies of the Arizona Activity Frequency Questionnaire (AAFQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Staten et al. 2001(2) |
Relation between 28-d and 7-d AAFQ and Physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) and Total energy Expenditure (TEE) calculated from DLW and measured RMR (Pearson correlations) -- NS between 7-d and 28 dy AAFQ |
35 sedentary women; 31-60 years of age |
| Expenditure
Measure (kJ/d) |
Mean+SD |
| RMR |
4267 ± 687 |
| DLW TEE |
9847 ± 2555 |
| DLW PAEE |
5578 ± 2084 |
| 28-d AAFQ
-total MET |
44.5 ± 10.1 |
| PAEE-indirect calorimetry |
3645 ± 1916 |
| TEE--indirect calorimetry |
7912 ± 2196 |
| TEE reporting accuracy
(AAFQic vs DLW) |
-17.8 ± 20.6 |
| -PAEE- Miffen et al |
4838 ± 2498 |
| -TEE-Miffen et al |
10,544 ± 2814 |
| -TEE reporting accuracy
(AAFQmif vs DLW) |
9.5 ± 24.6 |
| -PAEE MET conversion |
6117 ± 3270 |
| -TEE MET conversion |
13,445 ± 4342 |
| -TEE reporting accuracy
(AAFQmet vs DLW) |
37.3 ± 29.0 |
The AAFQ TEE was significantly correlated with TEE from DLW when the RMR was calculated
using the Mifflin et al. equation or MET conversion technique (r2=0.45 and
r2=0.58). P-values not given in table.
Summary Legend:
PAEE = Physical activity energy expenditure
TEE = Total energy Expenditure
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 3. Validation Studies of the Allied Dunbar National Fitness Survey (ADNFS)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Brownbill et al. 2002(3) |
Relation between past physical Activity (ADNFS) and BMD by DPX-MD and walking speed (in hallway), and stair climbing (two sample t-tests) |
136 generally healthy Caucasian women;
57.4-88.6 years of age |
No significant differences in BMD between brisk walking speed, stair climbing and past physical activity (ADNFS) |
[Return to the Top]
Table 4. Auckland Heart Study (AHS) Physical Activity Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Elley et al. 2003(4) |
Relation between the AHS PAQ administered twice, and a 7-day activity diary (7-d AD) and pedometer (PED) (Spearman’s correlation coefficients) |
34 “less active” old men and women; 10% Maori, 90% European; 40-79 years of age |
| |
7-d AD |
PED |
| 1st AHS |
| TEE |
0.59 |
0.22 |
| Total Moderate |
0.50** |
0.37* |
| Leisure Moderate |
0.52** |
|
| Leisure vigorous |
0.39** |
|
| 2nd AHS |
| TEE |
0.74*** |
0.49*** |
| Total moderate
activity |
0.72*** |
0.51*** |
| Leisure moderate |
0.59*** |
|
| Leisure vigorous |
0.65*** |
|
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 5. Validation Studies of the Baecke Activity Questionnaire (BAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Philippaerts et al 1999(5) |
Relation of the BAQ and 2 other PAQs to physical activity level (PAL) and average daily metabolic rate (ADMR) as measured with DLW (Pearson correlations) |
19 Flemish males aged 40 years of age |
| |
ADMR |
PAL |
BAQ |
-work index |
0.37 |
0.52* |
sport index |
0.46* |
0.55* |
-leisure time
index |
0.50* |
0.22 |
-total activity
index |
0.68** |
0.69*** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
| Philippaerts and Lefevre 1998(6) |
Relation of physical activity between 3 levels of professional status of the BAQ and 2 other PAQs (the TCQ and FCQ) Relation of principal-components of BAQ and 2 other PAQs (component loading matrix)- no p values provided |
90 Flemish males; 30, 35 and 40 years of age |
| Component |
BAQ |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
-Work index |
0.70 |
0.09 |
0.03 |
-0.03 |
0.24 |
-0.41 |
-Total activity
index |
0.23 |
0.87 |
0.15 |
-0.02 |
0.23 |
-0.06 |
-Leisure time
index |
-0.09 |
0.60 |
0.10 |
0.20 |
0.20 |
-0.04 |
Work index of BAQ (0.70) scored high loadings and can be interpreted as a dimension of PA at work. BAQ total activity index (0.87) and leisure time index (0.60) loaded highly with physical activity during sports activities |
| Pols et al 1996(7) |
Relation between BAQ and EPIC PAQ to a physical activity diary (12 d) as the main reference method, a single 24-h Caltrac accelerometer score, and energy intake estimated from a 24-h dietary recall repeated 12 times (Pearson correlation) |
33 women; 51-71 years of age |
| |
BAQ |
Pre-EPIC |
0.45* |
Diary |
0.51* |
Caltrac |
0.22 |
EI-recall |
-0.21 |
* p < 0.05 |
| Richardson et al 1995(8) |
Relation between BAQ And peak oxygen consumption (VO2 pk), % Body fat (%BF), Caltrac accelerometer and 48 hr diaries (PA) (Pearson partial correlations adjusted for age) |
28 men and 50 women- Caucasian- in the ‘The Athero-sclerosis Risk in Communities’ (ARIC); 20-59 years of age |
| |
VO2 pk |
%BF |
Caltrac |
Men: |
Leisure |
0.13 |
-0.05 |
-0.05 |
Total |
0.57* |
-0.30 |
0.24 |
Women: |
Leisure |
0.38* |
-.51* |
0.06 |
Total |
0.46* |
-0.51* |
0.19 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
| Miller et al 1994(9) |
Relationship between BAQ and kcal estimates from Caltrac accelerometer and 2 other PAQs
(correlations) |
26 women and 7 men-Physical Therapists-mean age 28±6 years |
Caltrac |
0.40 |
3-day record |
0.13 |
7-day recall |
0.07 |
Godin |
0.61** |
NASA |
0.54 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
| Jacobs et al 1993(10) |
Relationships between BAQ and VO2 max, % body fat (%BF), Caltrac accelerometer (CAL) and 4 wk activity history (FWH) (Spearman correlations) |
28 men and 50 women-Caucasian-20-59 years of age. |
| |
VO2 max |
%BF |
CAL |
FWH |
Total |
0.54 |
-0.49 |
0.19 |
0.37* |
Work |
0.23 |
-0.17 |
0.11 |
0.05 |
Leisure |
0.26* |
-0.39* |
0.01 |
0.28* |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
| Ainsworth et al 1993(11) |
Relationships between Baecke Occupational question and PA record scores (activity units) and other PAQs.
(Age- and gender-adjusted correlation coefficients) |
65 men and women; 23 to 59 years of age |
PA Record Scores
(activity units) |
.74 |
TOQ |
.09 |
HIP |
.38 |
Lipid Res Clinics |
.45 |
Minn Heart Health |
.16 |
Cardia |
.02 |
|
| Rauh et al 1992(12) |
Relationship between items on the Baecke and Caltrac
(Pearson correlations) |
45 Latino (Spanish/English-speaking) adults, 53% male; mean age 33 years |
Baecke: |
Work |
0.42* |
Sport |
0.39* |
Leisure |
0.41* |
* p < 0.05 |
| Albanes et al 1990(13) |
Relationship between BAQ and EI, REE and 7 other PAQs (Spearman correlations) |
21 men; 28-55 years of age |
EE |
0.38 |
EI-REE |
0.21 |
5-City Project |
0.16 |
Framingham |
0.57 |
Minn Leisure Time |
0.36 |
Health Insurance Plan |
0.78 |
Lipid Res Clinics |
0.68 |
Paffenbarger: |
Harvard U. Alumni |
0.56 |
U. Penn Alumni |
0.59 |
(No P-values provided) |
[Return to the Top]
Table 6. Modified Baecke Questionnaire (MBAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Bonnefoy et al 2001(14) |
Relationships between MBAQ and DLW and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)
(Pearson and Spearman's correlation coefficients) |
19 men; mean age 73.4 ± 4.1 years |
| |
DLW-TEE |
VO2 max |
MBAQ: |
-Questionnaire
score |
0.21(0.28) |
0.32(0.11) |
all NS
Spearman's correlation coefficients in parenthesis |
| Pols et al 1995(15) |
Relationship between MBAQ and 3-day activity diary at two times (Pearson correlations and tertile % agreement (Agrmnt) |
64 Dutch men and 62 Dutch women ages 20-70 years of age |
| |
Pearson |
Agrmnt % |
Men |
Time 1 |
0.56* |
56.7 |
Time 2 |
0.66* |
58.3 |
Women |
Time 1 |
0.44* |
40.0% |
Time 2 |
0.42 |
44.0% |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
| Voorrips et al 1991(16) |
Relationship between MBAQ total activity score and the average of 3-24 hr activity recalls over a 3-wk period and pedometer (PED) (3 consecutive days) |
14 men and 17 women- healthy and indepen-dently living; 63-80 years of age |
| |
24 hr |
PED |
MBAQ |
Total activity
score: |
0.78 |
0.72 |
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 7. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System- New Walking Module
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Yore et al 2004
(Abstract)(17) |
Relationships between BRFSSA PA module and activity logs in two studies: 1) Participants answered the survey 4 times (twice in-person and twice by telephone) and completed an activity log for 3 weeks, and 2) participants answered the survey 3 times by telephone and completed an activity log for 1 week. |
Study 1 (n = 92) conducted in 1998-1999, Study 2 (n = 60) was conducted in 2000-2001; for both, partici-pants were 50% female, 80% white; mean age of 45 years |
Abstract summary: In Study 1, 29% reported recommended walking on the BRFSS survey and 50% reported recommended walking on the log, concurrent validity kappa = 0.07. In Study 2 48% reported recommended walking on the BRFSS survey and 38% reported recommended walking on the log (k = .19). The concurrent validity of these questions is poor (K<0.2) |
[Return to the Top]
Table 8. Campbell Survey on Well-Being in Canada Physical Activity Monitor (PAM)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Craig et al 2002(18) |
Relationship of PAM to predicted VO2 max from step-test, BMI and self reported work and chore demands (Spearman correlation coefficients controlling for age and sex) |
69 males and 66 females; mean age 42.6 ± 2.1 years |
| |
Predict VO2 max |
BMI |
Work |
Chores |
Total |
0.36*** |
0.34*** |
0.37*** |
0.36*** |
Male |
0.30* |
0.31* |
0.33* |
0.30* |
Female |
0.42** |
0.39** |
0.42** |
0.41** |
Age <45 |
0.43*** |
0.45** |
0.43** |
0.43*** |
Age≥45 |
0.34** |
0.28@ |
0.36** |
0.34** |
@p < 0.05 * p < 0.01 ** p < 0.001 *** p < 0.0001 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 9. Central Sweden Physical Activity Questionnaire (CSPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Norman et al 2001(19) |
Relationship of CSPAQ to two 7-day activity records |
111 men; 44-78 years of age |
| |
SC |
C |
SD |
44-64 years |
0.63 |
0.63 |
0.65 |
65-78 years |
0.47 |
0.38 |
0.50 |
BMI<26 |
0.68* |
0.66* |
0.73* |
BMI>26 |
0.37 |
0.37 |
0.39 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Summary Legend:
SC = Spearman correlations
C = Concordance
SD = Spearman adjusted for within and between-person variation in the record
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 10. CARDIA Physical Activity Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Jacobs et al 1993(20) |
Relationships between CARDIA and VO2 max (Spearman correlations) |
28 men and 50 women-Caucasian; 20-59 years of age. |
| |
VO2 max |
%BF |
CAL |
FWH |
Moderate |
0.08 |
-0.09 |
0.11 |
0.08 |
Summary Legend:
%BF = % body fat
CAL = Caltrac accelerometer
FWH = 4 wk activity history
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 11. CHAMPS Activities Questionnaire for Older Adults
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Resnicow et al 2003(21) |
Relationship between modified CHAMPS (and 3 other questionnaires) and
Estimated VO2 max and BMI (Pearson Correlations) |
138-African-American men and women (78% female) in the Healthy Body/Healthy Spirit Trial; 21-68 years of age |
| Age |
VO2 |
BMI |
21-39 years |
-all activities |
0.31** |
0.08 |
-mod/vigorous |
0.35** |
0.11 |
40+ years |
-all activities |
0.05** |
-0.02 |
-mod/vigorous |
-0.00** |
0.03 |
Men |
-all activities |
0.42* |
0.15 |
-mod/vigorous |
0.43* |
0.19 |
Women |
-all activities |
0.07 |
-0.01 |
-mod/vigorous |
0.05 |
0.02 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 |
| Stewart et al 2001(22) |
Relationship of CHAMPS moderate and greater (M) intensity measures and All activities measures (ALL) of EE and Frequency/week (FW), to physical activity measures and physical functioning measures (Pearson Correlations) |
173 men and women from CHAMPS intervention trial (86 intervention and 87 control) plus 76 from the community; 65-90 years of age |
| |
EE-M |
FW-M |
EE-ALL |
FW-ALL |
BMI |
-0.06 |
-0.17** |
0.04 |
-0.21** |
LBF |
0.28** |
0.20** |
0.27** |
0.15 |
6-mw |
0.27** |
0.21*** |
0.22*** |
0.10 |
| PF |
0.30*** |
0.30*** |
0.27*** |
0.23*** |
EF |
0.20** |
0.23*** |
0.17** |
0.14* |
P |
0.11 |
0.17** |
0.07 |
0.08 |
WB |
0.09 |
0.14** |
0.05 |
0.02 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Summary Legend:
BMI = Body Mass Index
LBF = Low body functioning
6-mw = 6-min walk
PF = Self-reported physical functioning
EF = Self-reported energy/fatigue
P = Self reported Pain
WB = Self reported Psychological well-being
|
| Harada et al 2001(23) |
Relationship between CHAMPS - moderate and all activities (Pearson Correlations) |
87 older adults; 61% Japanese American, 34% white, 5% African American; 65-89 years of age |
| |
CHAMPS All activities |
CHAMPS moderate |
| (All Subjects) |
ML- |
|
|
| ankle |
0.36** |
0.42** |
| waist |
0.42*** |
0.48*** |
EPESE-
LBF |
0.46** |
0.44** |
6-M |
0.46** |
0.54** |
BMI |
0.006 |
-0.02 |
PF |
0.39** |
0.41** |
GH |
0.35** |
0.42** |
MH |
0.25** |
0.28** |
P |
0.26** |
0.28** |
** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Summary Legend:
ML = Mini-logger Activity monitor
EPESE = a short physical performance battery
LBF = lower body functioning
6-M = 6-minute walk
BMI = Body Mass Index
PF = Self-report physical functioning
GH = Self-report general health perceptions
MH = Self-report mental health
P = Pain
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 12. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Physical Activity Questions
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Wareham et al 2003(24) |
Relationship of EPIC Physical Activity Index (PAI), and physical activity ratio (PAR) calculated from 4-day heart-rate monitoring; VO2 max, energy intake/BMR assessed by 7-day food diaries (EI/BMR). |
173 men and women; 40 to 65 years of age |
| Physical Activity Index (EPIC) |
| |
Inactive |
Mod Inactive |
Mod active |
Active |
PAR* |
2.34 |
2.25 |
2.45 |
2.6 |
VO2 max** |
26 |
28 |
30 |
31 |
EI/BMR Men |
1.26 |
1.3 |
1.33 |
1.42 |
* p for trend 0.003
** p for trend 0.001 |
| Pols et al 1997(25) |
Relationship between EPIC PAQ items and 3-day activity diary, repeated four times (Spearman correlation) |
126 men and women; 20 and 70 years of age |
| |
Men |
Women |
| |
1st diary |
3rd diary |
1st diary |
3rd diary |
Walking |
0.32 |
0.26 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
Cycling |
0.46 |
0.48 |
0.48 |
0.49 |
No p values |
| Pols et al 1997(26) |
Relationship between pre-EPIC PAQ repeated 3 times, and four-times-repeated 3-day activity diary
(Spearman correlation) |
126 Dutch adults; 64 men, 62 women; 21-59 years of age |
| |
1st EPIC PAQ |
3rd EPIC PAQ |
Men |
0.66
(0.49-0.78) |
0.51
(0.28-0.68) |
Women |
0.43
(-0.18-0.63) |
0.44
(0.20-0.64) |
|
| Pols et al 1996(27) |
Relation between pre-EPIC PAQ and BAQ to a physical activity diary (12 d) as the main reference method, a single 24-h Caltrac accelerometer score, and energy intake estimated from a 24-h dietary recall repeated 12 times (Pearson correlation) |
33 women; 51-71 years of age |
| |
Pre-EPIC |
BAQ |
77% agreement for classification below and above mean |
Diary |
0.64* |
Caltrac |
0.22 |
EI-recall |
-0.43* |
* p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 13. European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Norfolk (EPIC2) Physical Activity Questions
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Wareham et al 2002(28) |
Relationship between ERIC-2 variables and Physical Activity Index (PAI), and four separate episodes of 4-day heart-rate monitoring (to obtain EE)and four repeated measures of sub-maximum oxygen uptake (to obtain mean VO2 max)
(Pearson correlations adjusted for age and sex) |
84 men (mean age 58.8 years) and 89 women (mean age 55.4 years) enrolled in European Prospec-tive Investiga-tion into Cancer Study-Norfolk cohort (EPIC-Norfolk) |
| |
EE (kj/h) |
Mean VO2 max |
PAR >5 (%) |
EPIC-2
Variables: |
Activity/home |
-0.04 |
0.09 |
-0.12 |
Activity/Work |
0.17* |
0.01 |
-0.17 |
Recreational
Activity |
0.13 |
0.16* |
-0.20** |
PAI |
0.28** |
0.15* |
0.05 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 14a. Health Insurance Plan of New York City (HIP) Activity Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Ainsworth et al 1993(11) |
Relationship between HIP Occupational Index and PA record scores (activity units) and other PAQs.
(age- and gender-adjusted correlation coefficients) |
65 men and women; 23 to 59 years of age |
| PA Record Scores
(activity units) |
.83 |
| Lipid Res Clinics |
.31 |
| Minn Heart Health |
.26 |
| Cardia |
.12 |
| Baecke |
.38 |
|
| Albanes et al 1990(13) |
Relationship between HIP total activity index, past-week kcal and EI, and summary estimates from other PAQs
(Spearman correlations) |
21 USDA employees;28-55 years of age |
| EI |
0.19 |
| EI-REE |
0.05 |
| 5-City Project |
0.40 |
| Framinham |
0.75 |
| Minn Leisure |
0.52 |
| Lipid Res Clinics |
0.68 |
| Baecke |
0.78 |
| Paffenbarger: |
| Harvard U. Alumni |
0.53 |
| U. Penn Alumni |
0.77 |
(No P-values provided) |
| Leon at al 1981(29) |
Relationship between Occupational PA using HIP job classification and treadmill duration performance |
175 men from MRFIT cohort screening population; 36-59 years of age |
| HIP job class |
0.070 |
| HIP job class
-light to moderate |
0.028 |
| job sweat |
0.118 |
all ns |
[Return to the Top]
Table 14b. Historical Leisure Activity Questionnaire (HLAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Chasan-Taber 2002(30) |
Relationship between Modified HLAQ (to collect past year) and four 1-wk activity logs (PAL); attenuated (r) and deattenuated (rd) Pearson coefficients between each questionnaire and the average of up to four 1 wk PALs |
131 women |
| |
Baseline HLAQ and average of PALs |
Follow-up HLAQ and
average of PALs |
| |
r |
rd |
r |
rd |
| Total activity |
0.24* |
0.28* |
0.26* |
0.29* |
| Moderate |
0.18* |
0.23* |
0.15 |
0.16 |
| Vigorous |
0.52* |
0.62* |
0.52* |
0.63* |
| Age<50 yr (N=64) |
| Total activity |
|
|
0.31* |
|
| Moderate |
|
|
0.16 |
|
| Vigorous |
|
|
0.58** |
|
| Age≥50 yr (N=67) |
| Total activity |
|
|
0.19 |
|
| Moderate |
|
|
0.12 |
|
| Vigorous |
|
|
0.47** |
|
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 |
| Gregg et al 1999(31) |
Relation of HLAQ and MNLTPAQ and Quantitative ultrasound (QUS), assessment of bone speed of sound (SOS) and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and bone mineral density (BMD)
ANOVA |
393 women; 45-53 years of age |
| |
PA |
PA |
PA |
| At ages: |
14-21y |
22-35y |
35y |
| BUA |
-0.32 |
-0.73 |
0.72 |
| p-value |
0.73 |
0.52 |
0.48 |
| SOS |
0.34 |
0.74 |
1.00 |
| p-value |
0.42 |
0.14 |
0.02 |
| Femoral Neck
BMD |
0.003 |
0.016 |
0.018 |
| p-value |
0.58 |
0.04 |
0.006 |
Summary Legend:
QUS = Quantitative ultrasound
SOS = Assessment of bone speed of sound
BUA = Broadband ultrasound attenuation
BMD = Bone mineral density
|
| Kriska et al 1988(32) |
Relationship between Historical Physical Activity Survey (HPAS) and current PA (using Paffenbarger (Paf) and Large Scale Integrated Motor Activity Monitor (LSI)
Relationship between Historical Physical Activity Survey (HPAS) and baseline bone measurements
(Pearson Correlations) |
223 postmenopausal women |
Current PA Measures
| |
HPAS (kcals/wk) |
| |
Include walking |
Exlcude
walking |
| Paf |
| Mean blocks walked/d |
0.22** |
0.09 |
| Sport index |
0.41** |
0.46** |
| Kcals expended/wk |
0.41** |
0.38** |
| LSI |
| Day counts/hr |
0.12* |
0.13* |
| Evening counts/hr |
0.01 |
0.03 |
| Grip strength |
0.19* |
0.23** |
Relation between HPAS and Baseline Bone measures:
| Age period (years) |
Area |
Density |
| 14-21 |
0.14* |
0.10 |
| 22-34 |
0.09 |
0.14* |
| 35-50 |
0.14* |
0.17** |
| 50+ |
0.06 |
0.09 |
| Total historical activity |
0.16* |
0.16 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
Summary Legend:
HPAS = Historical Physical Activity Survey
Paf = Current PA (using Paffenbarger)
LSI = Large Scale Integrated Motor Activity Monitor
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 15. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Craig et al. 2003(33) |
Relation between Short, last 7 day, telephone (S7T), Short, last 7 day, self-administered (S7S,) Short usual week, telephone (SUT), Short, usual week, self-administered (SUS), Long, last 7 day, telephone (L7T), Long, last 7 day, self-administered (L7S,) Long usual week, telephone (LUT), Long, usual week, self-administered (LUS) versions of (IPAQ) and CSA accelerometer total counts per registered time.
*LUI, SUI left undefined
(Spearman’s coefficients) |
Adults from 14 centers in 10 countries (BRA UK, FIN, USA1, USA2, NET, SW GU, SA, AUS, JAP 18- to 65-years of age. |
| |
Site |
Total PA |
Total PA Using pace |
Total PA Excl slow pace |
ACC >150 min/wk |
| IPAQ Long
Forms: |
| L7S |
UK1 |
0.43 |
0.42 |
0.38 |
0.83 |
| FIN |
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.49 |
0.89 |
| USA1 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.31 |
| USA2 |
0.32 |
0.36 |
0.34 |
0.81 |
| NET |
0.38 |
0.37 |
0.38 |
1.0 |
| SW |
0.24 |
0.25 |
0.29 |
0.82 |
| LUT |
USA2 |
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.86 |
| GU |
0.59 |
0.59 |
0.57 |
0.80 |
| GU |
0.61 |
0.62 |
0.60 |
0.80 |
| GU |
0.39 |
0.43 |
0.41 |
0.75 |
| LUI* |
SA |
0.52 |
0.52 |
0.51 |
0.86 |
| SA |
0.46 |
0.45 |
0.44 |
0.85 |
| LUS |
JAP |
0.36 |
0.36 |
0.33 |
0.72 |
| USA1 |
-0.02 |
-0.01 |
0.02 |
0.35 |
| BRA |
-0.27 |
-0.26 |
-0.31 |
0.46 |
| IPAQ Short
Forms: |
| S7T |
AUS |
0.12 |
0.14 |
0.23 |
0.74 |
| S7S |
FIN |
0.47 |
0.49 |
0.51 |
0.88 |
| USA1 |
0.26 |
0.27 |
0.25 |
0.46 |
| USA2 |
0.27 |
0.27 |
0.28 |
0.81 |
| NET |
0.32 |
0.30 |
0.34 |
0.93 |
| SW |
0.02 |
0.02 |
0.14 |
0.71 |
| UK1 |
0.40 |
0.40 |
0.38 |
0.81 |
| SUT |
USA2 |
0.57 |
0.57 |
0.57 |
0.86 |
| SUI* |
GU |
0.54 |
0.36 |
0.43 |
0.79 |
| GU |
0.45 |
0.45 |
0.01 |
0.77 |
| GU |
0.42 |
0.45 |
0.37 |
0.80 |
| SA |
0.45 |
0.45 |
0.43 |
0.85 |
| SA |
0.37 |
0.45 |
0.33 |
0.84 |
| SUS |
JAP |
0.32 |
0.45 |
0.30 |
0.65 |
| USA1 |
0.13 |
0.45 |
0.13 |
0.50 |
| BRA |
0.12 |
0.45 |
0.17 |
0.75 |
No p values provided
Summary Legend:
S7T = Short, last 7 day, telephone
S7S = Short, last 7 day, self-administered
SUT = Short, usual week, telephone
SUS = Short, usual week, self-administered
L7T = Long, last 7 day, telephone
L7S = Long, last 7 day, self-administered
LUT = Long, usual week, telephone
LUS = Long, usual week, self-administered
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 16. Kaiser Physical Activity Survey (KPAS)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Ainsworth et al 2000(34) |
Relationship between KPAS physical Activity Scores (PAS) and Caltrac accelerometer and PA records; cardio respiratory fitness (VO2 peak) and % body fat; PA records for two 7-d periods, separated by 1 month
(Spearman correlations) |
50 women; 20-60 years of age |
| |
KPAS-PAS
Occupational |
Active Living |
| Indirect: |
| VO2 peak |
0.04 |
0.37 |
| % body fat |
-0.06 |
-0.41 |
| Direct: |
| PA record |
0.35 |
.22 |
| Direct: |
| Caltrac-Kcal/d |
0.30 |
-0.21 |
| MET/min/d |
0.16 |
0.34 |
| PA record: |
| -walking |
0.50 |
|
| -walk/cycle transport |
|
0.04 |
| -walk + 15 min |
|
0.33 |
| -bicycle+15 min |
|
0.43 |
correlations>0.28 are p < 0.05; correlations>0.35 are p < 0.01
Summary Legend:
PAS = KPAS Physical Activity Scores
VO2 peak = Cardio respiratory fitness
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 17. Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA)-Physical Activity Questionnaire (LAPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Stel et al 2004(35) |
Relation between LAPAQ and 7-day diary and pedometer |
439 older persons; 69-92 years of age |
| |
Correlation of LAPAQ and 7-day Diary |
| Total activity |
0.68* |
| Walking |
0.50* |
| Bicycling |
0.84* |
| |
Correlation of LAPAQ and Pedometer |
| All subjects |
0.43* |
| Cyclists and
Swimmers excluded |
0.56* |
* p < 0.001 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 18. Minnesota Leisure-time Physical activity questionnaire (MLTPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Walsh et al 2004(36) |
Relation of TEE calculated from MLTPAQ and the Tecumseh Occupational questionnaire (TEC), to body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and free-living TEE (DLW) (ANOVA) |
20 white and 21 black premeno-pausal women (over-weight, weight reduced and control); 20-46 years of age; 20 white and 14 black control women |
Overestimation of EE (kcals/dy)-differences between TEC/ MNLTPAQ combined, and DLW
| Overweight* |
| Black |
981±284 |
| White |
869±388 |
| Weight reduced* |
| Black |
1016±521* |
| White |
449±279 |
| Control |
| Black |
551±375 |
| White |
670±365 |
* p < 0.05
Relation between % body fat with over-estimation of EE by TEC/MNLTPAQ
| Overweight |
0.39* |
| Weight reduced |
NS |
| Controls |
NS |
(NS-correlations not given) |
| Conway et al 2002(37) |
Relation between a 4-wk history version of the MLTPAQ and the TEC and doubly labeled water (DLW) |
24 males; 42.0 ± 2.3 years of age |
Mean estimates of EE from questionnaires and DLW
| |
Mean |
R2 |
| EE MLTPAQ |
3.03±0.41 |
|
| EE TEC |
8.47±0.78 |
|
| EESLEEPMET |
2.29±0.09 |
|
| EE GEN |
1.17±0.12 |
|
| EEDLW |
13.55±0.38 |
|
| EE total 1 |
13.79±0.89 |
0.38** |
| EE total 2 |
14.87±0.90 |
0.39** |
EE total 1= EE MLTPAQ+ EE TEC EESLEEPMET
EE total2= EE MLTPAQ+ EE TEC EESLEEPMET+ EE GEN
** p < 0.001 |
| Tuero et al 2001(38) |
Relation between MLTPAQ and fitness indicators: VO2 max and % BF (correlation coefficients) |
44 male and 38 females, Hispanic; 18-59 years of age |
| MLTPAQ |
Baseline |
12 month |
| |
V02 max |
BF |
VO2 max |
BF |
| Light |
-0.119 |
0.166 |
-0.223 |
0.196 |
| Moderate |
0.163 |
0.198 |
-0.117 |
0.95 |
| Heavy |
0.586* |
-0.287* |
-0.494* |
0.242* |
| Total |
0.190 |
-0.019 |
0.064 |
0.039 |
* p < 0.001 |
| Bonnefoy et al 2001(39) |
Relationships between MLTPAQ and DLW and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)
(Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation coefficients) |
19 men; mean age 73.4 ± 4.1 years |
| MLTPAQ: |
DLW-TEE |
VO2 max |
| -light intensity |
-0.15(-0.24) |
-0.05(-0.07) |
| -Moderate intensity |
0.05*(0.19) |
0.30(0.15) |
| -Heavy intensity |
0.28(0.47)* |
0.50*(0.54)* |
| -Total |
0.23(0.17) |
0.48*(0.38) |
* p <0.05
Spearman’s correlation coefficients in parenthesis |
| Elosua et al 2000(40) |
Relation between EE in PA obtained by MLTPAQ and BMI, HR at rest, after 3 min of exercise test and after 6 min of exercise test.
(Spearman correlation coefficients) |
250 Spanish women; 18-60 years of age |
| EE-PA: |
BMI |
HR |
HR-3 |
HR-6 |
ET |
| Total |
-0.129* |
-0.078 |
-0.214* |
-0.175* |
0.395* |
| -heavy |
-0.199* |
-0.158* |
-0.335 |
-0.283* |
-0.508* |
| -moderate |
-0.061 |
0.003 |
0.018 |
0.001 |
0.129* |
| -light |
-0.092 |
0.023 |
0.017 |
0.029 |
-0.017 |
| -household |
-0.268* |
0.034 |
0.139 |
0.105 |
-0.305* |
* p < 0.05 |
| Starling et al 1999(41) |
Relation between Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS) and MLTPAQ and Caltrac uniaxial accelerometer, and doubly labeled water (DLW) in conjunction with indirect calorimetry (ANOVA) |
35 women and 32 men; 45- to 84years of age |
| Method: |
Physical Activity EE (kcals/d) |
| DLW |
| -men |
1211±429 |
| -women |
873±244 |
| MLTPAQ |
| -men |
459±288* |
| -women |
386±228* |
| CALTRAC |
| -men |
554±242* |
| -women |
379±162* |
* p < 0.05 compared with DLW |
| Richardson et al 1994(42) |
Relation between MLTPAQ and six 48-hour physical activity records, fourteen 48-hour Caltrac accelerometer readings, 3 VO2 peak determinations and percent body fat (%BF)
(Age- and gender-adjusted Pearson partial correlation coefficients) |
78 men and women; 20-59 years of age |
| |
T |
H |
M |
L |
HH |
| %BF |
-0.24* |
-0.24* |
-0.01 |
-0.15 |
-0.01 |
| (n) |
(75) |
(76) |
(76) |
(76) |
(75) |
| V02peak |
0.47** |
0.43** |
0.14 |
0.27* |
0.14 |
| (n) |
(75) |
(76) |
(76) |
(76) |
(75) |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
Summary Legend:
T = Total
L = Light
M = Moderate
H = Heavy
HH = Household
%BF = Percent Body Fat
VO2 max = vital capacity
|
| Jacobs et al 1993(10) |
Relation between MLTPAQ and 9 other PAQs, and treadmill exercise performance and vital capacity (VO2 max, Forced Expiratory Volume(FEV), work load), body fatness, the average of 14 4-wk physical activity histories (4WH) and the average of 14 2-d accelerometer readings (Caltrac)
(age-adjusted correlation coefficients) |
78 men and women; 20-59 years of age |
| MLTPAQ |
| |
T |
L |
M |
H |
HH |
| CALTRAC |
| -kcal/d |
-0.06 |
-0.04 |
0.02 |
-0.01 |
0.08 |
| -min/d |
0.18 |
0.07 |
0.22 |
0.16 |
0.03 |
| 4WH |
| - T |
0.74 |
0.13 |
0.25 |
0.52 |
0.55 |
| -L |
0.27 |
0.83 |
-0.02 |
0.12 |
-0.09 |
| -M |
0.15 |
-0.09 |
0.75 |
0.12 |
-0.03 |
| -H |
0.74 |
0.11 |
0.22 |
0.86 |
0.08 |
| -HH |
0.40 |
-0.10 |
0.03 |
0.06 |
0.74 |
| WORKLOAD |
0.45 |
0.32 |
0.17 |
0.45 |
0.00 |
| %BF |
-0.24 |
-0.08 |
-0.07 |
-0.22 |
-0.08 |
| FEV |
0.09 |
0.10 |
-0.05 |
0.08 |
0.02 |
| V02 |
0.43 |
0.11 |
0.15 |
0.39 |
0.16 |
Summary Legend:
T = Total
L = Light
M = Moderate
H = Heavy
HH = Household
VO2 max = vital capacity
FEV = Forced Expiratory Volume
4WH = the average of 14 4-wk physical activity histories
Caltrac = the average of 14 2-d accelerometer readings
|
| Wilbur et al 1993(43) |
Relationship between MLTPAQ Leisure activities and Cardio respiratory fitness established with a Monarch bicycle ergometer, BP, Ponderosity, and Self Report activity. |
375 women, 73% white, 22% black; 33-63 years of age |
| |
Leisure EE |
| BP: |
| -systolic |
-.00 |
| -diastolic |
-.06 |
| Ponderosity |
-.11* |
| Cardiorespiratory
Fitness |
.21** |
| Self report: |
| Activity compared to
others |
.24*** |
| Overall activity |
.23*** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.001 *** p < 0.0001 |
| Albanes et al 1990(13) |
Relationship between MLTPAQ past-week kcal and EI and summary estimates from other PAQs
(Spearman correlations) |
21 USDA employees;28-55 years of age |
| EI |
0.13 |
| EI-REE |
0.17 |
| 5-City Project |
0.48 |
| Framinham |
0.33 |
| Health Insurance Plan |
0.52 |
| Lipid Res Clinics |
0.63 |
| Paffenbarger: |
| Harvard U. Alumni |
0.54 |
| U. Penn Alumni |
0.47 |
(No P-values provided) |
[Return to the Top]
Table 19. The Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ)/Pima Indian Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Kriska et al 1990(44) |
Relationships between the MAQ and past wk Caltrac activity monitor (counts/h) at test and retest (Spearman correlations) |
17 Pima Indian men and women; 10- 59 year of age |
| |
Walking included |
Walking excluded |
| |
Test |
retest |
test |
retest |
| Leisure |
| -Past wk |
0.80* |
0.50* |
0.62* |
0.58* |
| -Past yr |
0.69* |
0.27 |
0.44 |
0.32 |
| Occupation |
| -Past yr |
0.41 |
0.41 |
0.41 |
0.41 |
| Total past Wk |
0.59* |
0.66* |
0.53* |
0.60* |
* p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 20. The MONICA Optional Study of Physical Activity (MOSPA-Q)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Roeykens et al 1998(45) |
Relation between MOSPA-Q items by time scores (i.e. WORK) and EE spent in activity category (i.e. KWORK) and biometrical and physiological parameters: BMI, VO2 peak, LBM, %BF
(Spearman rank order correlation coefficients) |
167 physical education and physical therapy alumni. |
| Physiological and Biometrical Variables |
| MOSPA-Q |
BMI |
VO2 max |
LBM |
% BF |
| Items: |
| Time scores: |
| WORK |
0.081 |
0.210* |
0.201** |
-0.166* |
| TRANS |
0.174* |
0.161* |
0.110 |
-0.133 |
| LTA |
0.043 |
0.29*** |
0.192* |
-0.248 |
| EE: |
| KWORK |
0.081 |
0.216 |
0.199 |
-0.167* |
| KTRANS |
0.176* |
0.167 |
0.111 |
-0.134 |
| KLTA |
0.115 |
0.438*** |
0.370*** |
-0.361*** |
| TEE |
0.304*** |
0.387*** |
0.529*** |
-0.264*** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
TRANS - transportation
LTA - Leisure time activity |
[Return to the Top]
Table 21. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)-walking questions
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Rauh et al 1992(12) |
Relationship between items on the NHIS Walking items and Caltrac
(Pearson correlations) |
45 Latino (Spanish/English-speaking) adults, 53% male; mean age 33 years |
p < 0.05 |
| Hovell et al 1992(46) |
Relationship of the level of change in walking for exercise (walking measured by two items from NHIS: “How many times in the past two weeks did you walk for exercise?” and “About how many minutes did you do the activity each times?”) collected twice over two years, and independent variables measuring “Change in Self-efficacy”
(correlation coefficients) |
1,701 adults, 58% male, 88% Caucasian; 48.25 ± 18.08 years of age |
Significant coefficients for dynamic correlates of Walking for Exercise
| |
B |
p< |
| Change in
Family Support |
.131 |
.0001 |
| Change in
Vigorous PA |
.084 |
.0009 |
| Change in
Heart Healthy Diet |
.074 |
.003 |
| Change in
Self-efficacy |
.069 |
.008 |
| Change in
Friend Support |
.131 |
.0001 |
| Change in
Cigarette Smoking |
-.060 |
.013 |
|
| Weiss et al 1990(47) |
Relationships between NHIS calculated EE and individual questions from the 1985 supplement
(Spearman correlations) |
11,653-32,822 Men and women in the NHIS cohort: aged at least 18 years |
| Activity compared to peers-3 levels (n=32,822) |
0.28* |
| Activity compared to peers-5 levels (n=32,415) |
0.29* |
| Job-related activity (20,789) |
-0.02* |
| Main daily activity (11,653) |
0.22* |
* p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 22. Nurses Health Study II Activity and Inactivity Questionnaire (NHS II-PAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Wolf et al 1994(48) |
Relation between NHS II-PAQ and past-week activity recalls and 7-day activity diaries
(deattenuated correlations adjusted for within-person variation) |
Representative sample of 149 women (84 African American) from NHS II; 39 ± 4.3 years of age |
Correlation of NHS II PAQ verses average response on 4 past week recalls
| |
crude |
deattenuated |
| Representative
Sample |
0.70
(0.60-0.77)* |
0.79
(0.64-0.88) |
| African-American
Sample |
0.68
(0.54-0.78) |
0.83
(0.49-0.95) |
Correlation of NHS II PAQ verses average responses on 28 days of activity diaries
| |
crude |
deattenuated |
| Representative
Sample |
| Activity 1 |
0.57
(0.46-0.67) |
0.62
(0.44-0.75) |
| Activity 2 |
0.46
(0.32-0.58) |
0.56
(0.36-0.71) |
| African-American
Sample |
| Activity 1 |
0.47
(0.32-0.63) |
0.59
(0.31-0.78) |
| Activity 2 |
0.54
(0.37-0.68) |
0.63
(0.36-0.80) |
Activity 1 = the sum of all moderate and vigorous recreational activities with MET values of >4.0
Activity 2 = the sum of all moderate and vigorous activities corresponding to those listed on the NHS II PAQ
* 95% CI |
[Return to the Top]
Table 23. One-Page Questionnaire of Physical activity (VITAL- study)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Littman et al 2004(49) |
One-page questionnaire (VITAL) to capture data on usual recreational physical activity during the preceding 10 years and MET-hours estimated from a detailed comparison interview.
(Age- and sex-adjusted Pearson Partial Correlation Coefficients) |
217 men and women (112 men) enrolled in the Vitamins and Lifestyle (VITAL) study; 50 to 75 years of age |
Correlation between the VITAL and Comparison Interview for Summary Recreational PA and Selected Activities
| |
Men |
Women |
All |
| All Activities |
0.65
(.37-.68)* |
0.70
(.59-.79) |
0.63
(.36-.80) |
| Moderate and High Intensity |
0.54
(.40-.66) |
0.63
(.50-.74) |
0.58
(.49-.66) |
| Moderate intensity |
0.54
(-.05-.31) |
0.46
(.3-.6) |
0.27
(.14-.39) |
| Low intensity |
0.43
(.27-.57) |
0.44
(.28-.59) |
0.44
(.32-.54) |
| Walking |
0.49
(.33-.62) |
0.64
(.52-.74) |
0.55
(.45-.64) |
* 95% CI |
[Return to the Top]
Table 24. Perceived Functional Ability (PFA) Questionnaire/ Physical Activity Rating (PA-R) Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| George et al 1996(50) |
Relation between Perceived Functional Ability (PFA) questions and Physical Activity rating (PA-R) questions, to non-exercise (N-Ex) VO2 max estimations.
Multiple regression coefficients |
50 male and 50 female college students; 22.3 ± 3.0 years of age |
N-Ex VO2 max regression equations:
| |
MODEL 1 |
MODEL 2 |
| |
B |
B-weight |
B |
B-weight |
| PFA |
0.738** |
0.46** |
0.724** |
0.45** |
| PA-R |
0.688* |
0.17* |
0.788* |
0.20* |
* p < 0.001 ** p < 0.0001
Summary Legend:
Model 1: Self-report predictor variables
Model 2: Self-report and measured (BMI) predictor variables
B = multiple regression coefficients
B-weight = standardized multiple regression coefficients
PFA = Perceived Functional Ability
PA-R = Physical Activity rating
N-Ex = Non-exercise VO2
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 25. Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire/College Alumnus Questionnaire (CAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Resnicow et al 2003(21) |
Relationship between modified Paffenbarger (Paf) Walking Items (and 3 other questionnaires) and
Estimated VO2 max and BMI (Pearson Correlations) |
138-African-American men and women (78% female) in the Healthy Body/Healthy Spirit Trial; 21-68 years of age |
| |
VO2 |
BMI |
| Paf Walking Items--Males |
| -City blocks
walked |
-0.03 |
0.29 |
| -Pace of walking |
0.02 |
0.06 |
| -flights of stairs
climbed |
0.13 |
-0.25 |
| -minutes walking
per day |
0.32 |
-0.21 |
| Paf Walking Items--Females |
| -City blocks
walked |
-0.06 |
0.11 |
| -Pace of walking |
0.01 |
0.00 |
| -flights of stairs
climbed |
0.12 |
0.03 |
| -minutes walking
per day |
0.02 |
0.12 |
all values NS |
| Bonnefoy et al 2001(39) |
Relationships between CAQ items and DLW and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)
(Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation coefficients) |
19 men; mean age 73.4 ± 4.1 years |
| |
DLW-TEE |
VO2 max |
| CAQ: |
| -walking |
-0.32(-0.32) |
-0.28(-0.21) |
| -stairs |
-0.18(-0.02) |
-0.19(0.01) |
| -total
activity |
0.39(0.37) |
0.21(0.17) |
all ns
Spearman’s correlation coefficients in parenthesis |
| Singh et al 2001(51) |
Relationships between PAQ and 7-d activity recalls, pedometer readings, treadmill test |
165 black (118 female) Seventh-day Adventists; mean age female: 50 (15) years, male: 47 (14) years |
This article states the PA questionnaire used is the same as that used in the Singh 1996 validation study (which does appear to be the Paffenbarger). But in fact, the two questionnaires (which are provided in both articles) don’t appear to be the same; and the Singh 2001 version does not ask specific walking questions. |
| Bassett et al 2000(52) |
Relationship between measurements of daily walking distance on the CAQ and a pedometer ANOVA |
48 men (mean age 40.9 ± 11.2 years) and 48 women (mean age 39 ± 11.5 years); 4% African American 92% Caucasian |
Physical Activity Index (PAI) and Walking measures from CAQ
| |
W |
S |
PAI |
pedometer |
| Men |
| -MET
min/wk |
471±297 |
101±104 |
1656±1008 |
1223*±473 |
| -kcals/
wk |
677±442 |
142±148 |
2387±1487 |
1772*±714 |
| Women |
| -MET
min/wk |
398±308 |
59±56 |
1318±1195 |
1317*±516 |
| -kcals/
wk |
433±326 |
61±54 |
1445±1359 |
1445*±513 |
| All subjects |
| -MET
min/wk |
435±303 |
80±86 |
1487±1113 |
1270*±494 |
| -kcals/
wk |
555±405 |
101±118 |
1916±1490 |
1608*±640 |
W = walking
S = stairs
* significant difference between CAQ and pedometer (p = 0.0001) |
| Gregg et al 1999(31) |
Relation of recent PA from CAQ and Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) assessment of bone (Speed of sound (SOS and broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and bone mineral density (BMD)
(ANOVA) |
393 women; 45-53 years of age |
| |
Recent Physical Activity |
| BUA: |
| Z score |
0.11 |
| p-value |
0.03 |
| SOS: |
| Z score |
0.12 |
| p-value |
0.001 |
| Femoral Neck BMD: |
| Z score |
0.11 |
| p-value |
0.001 |
|
| Singh et al 1996(53) |
Relationship between selected CAQ items and components of the CAQ Physical Activity Index (PAI) and maximal treadmill time
(Partial correlation coefficients) |
56 Adventists Males (AM), 59 Non-Adventist (NM) males, 56 Adventist females (AF) and 34 non-
Adventist females (NF) mean age approximately 52 years |
| |
AM |
NM |
AF |
NF |
| Pace |
0.10 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
0.39** |
| PAI: |
| Stairs (MET/min/wk) |
0.25 |
0.08 |
0.14 |
0.08 |
| Blocks (MET/min/wk) |
0.16 |
0.10 |
-0.07 |
0.22 |
| Speed
<3mph |
0.01 |
-0.07 |
-0.07 |
0.01 |
** p < 0.05 |
| Ainsworth et al 1993(54) |
Relationships between CAQ items, the CAQ Physical Activity Index -PAI and PA record items, Caltrac, VO2 max, %BF
(Age-adjusted correlations) |
28 men and 50 women; 21-59 years of age |
| CAQ Items |
Stairs |
City
Blocks |
PAI |
| PA Record |
| -stairs |
0.79** |
0.09 |
0.17 |
| -city blocks |
0.06 |
0.34** |
0.24* |
| Caltrac |
| -kcals/dy |
-0.00 |
0.17 |
0.17 |
| -Caltrac METs/d |
0.07 |
0.21 |
0.29 |
| VO2 max |
0.17 |
0.16 |
0.60** |
| %BF |
0.22 |
-0.12 |
-0.44** |
* p <0.05 ** p <0.01 |
| Rauh et al 1992(12) |
Relationship between items on the CAQ and Caltrac
(Pearson correlations) |
45 Latino (Spanish/English-speaking) adults, 53% male; mean age 33 years |
| CAQ: |
| Flights climbed |
0.11 |
| Blocks walked |
0.02 |
| Kcals/wk |
0.34* |
* p < 0.05 |
| Jacobs et al 1993(10) |
Relationships between CAQ items (Physical Activity Index-PAI, Stairs and City blocks) and VO2 max, % body fat (%BF), Caltrac accelerometer (CAL) and 4 wk activity history (FWH) (Spearman correlations) |
28 men and 50 women-Caucasian-20-59 years of age. |
| CAQ Items |
Stairs |
City
Blocks |
PAI |
| VO2 |
0.02 |
-0.01 |
0.52* |
| %BF |
-0.14 |
0.00 |
-0.30* |
| Caltrac |
-0.01 |
0.16 |
0.30 |
| FWH |
0.25 |
0.08 |
0.31 |
* p < 0.05 |
| Washburn et al 1990(55) |
Relationships between CAQ (Harvard Alumni Activity Survey-HAAS) scores and self-report sweat hours per week, BMI and HDL cholesterol (Pearson correlation coefficients) |
732 randomly selected adults; 25 to 65 years |
| |
HAAS scores |
| Sweat hrs/week |
0.24** |
| Sweat hrs # |
0.23** |
| Log sweat hr/wk |
0.39** |
| Log sweat hrs/wk # |
0.38** |
| BMI |
-0.08 |
| HDL cholesterol |
-0.07 |
HAAS# and BMI r = -0.09*
HAAS# and HDL-C r = -0.13*
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01
# Partial correlation adjusted for sex and age |
| Siconolfi et al 1985(56) |
Relationship between Paffenbarger Physical Activity Index-PAI, and VO2 max and sweating
(correlation coefficients) |
36 men (mean age 41 years) and 32 women (mean age 42 years) |
| PAI: |
Total |
Men |
Women |
| VO2 max |
0.29* |
0.26 |
0.08 |
| Sweat |
0.57** |
0.54** |
0.60** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 |
| Laport et al 1983(57) |
Relationship between the Paffenbarger Physical Activity Index-PAI, and Large Scale Integrated activity monitor
(correlation coefficients) |
76 post-menopausal women; 44-74 years of age |
R = 0.23
p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 26. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Harada et al 2001(23) |
Relationship between PASE and Mini-logger Activity monitor (ML), a short physical performance battery (EPESE): lower body functioning (LBF), 6-minute walk (6M), BMI and self-report functioning/ well being measures: Physical functioning (PF), general health perceptions (GH), mental health (MH) and pain (P)
(Pearson Correlations) |
87 older adults; 61% Japanese American, 34% white, 5% African American; 65-89 years of age |
| |
PASE total score (All subjects) |
| ML- |
| ankle |
0.59*** |
| waist |
0.52*** |
| EPESE- |
| LBF |
0.57** |
| 6-M |
0.58** |
| BMI |
-.007 |
| PF |
0.30** |
| GH |
0.326* |
| MH |
0.23* |
| P |
0.17 |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Summary Legend:
ML = Mini-logger Activity monitor
EPESE = Short physical performance battery
LBF = Lower body functioning
6M = 6-minute walk BMI
PF = Physical functioning and self-report functioning / well being measures
GH = General health perceptions
MH = Mental health
P = Pain
|
| Bonnefoy et al 2001(39) |
Relationships between PASE and DLW and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)
(Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation coefficients) |
19 men; mean age 73.4 ± 4.1 years |
| |
DLW-TEE |
VO2 max |
| PASE: |
| Total score |
0.28(0.23) |
0.33(0.16) |
all NS
Spearman’s correlation coefficients in parentheses |
| Washburn et al 1999(58) |
physiologic and performance characteristics: peak oxygen uptake, resting heart rate (HR) and blood pressure, percent body fat, and balance scores.
(Pearson product moment correlation coefficients) |
56 men, 134 women-sedentary adults; mean age 66.5 years |
| Peak O2 uptake |
0.20** |
| Systolic BP |
-0.18* |
| Diastolic BP |
0.003 |
| Resting HR |
0.02 |
| %BF |
-0.01 |
| Balance score |
0.20** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 |
| Washburn et al 1999(59) |
Relationship between PASE and CSA portable accelerometer
(Spearman correlations) |
20 adults (17 women and 3 men); 67-80 years of age |
PASE score:
| Total PASE |
0.49* |
| Leisure exercise |
0.11 |
| Occupation |
0.32 |
* p < 0.05 |
| Washburn et al 1993(60) |
Relationships between PASE cores and perceived health, sickness impact profile (SIP) total score, heart rate, grip strength, static balance and dominant leg strength
(Pearson correlations) |
222 men and women at least 65 years of age |
| -perceived health |
-0.34* |
| -(SIP) total score |
-0.42* |
| -heart rate |
-0.13* |
| -grip strength |
0.37* |
| -static balance |
0.33* |
| -dominant leg
strength |
0.25* |
* p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 27. Physical Activity Scale (PAS)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Aadahl et al 2003(61) |
Relation between PAS and 4 d of accelerometry (CSA 7164) and physical activity diary in 40 volunteer men
(Spearman rank-order correlation) |
40 men and women between 20 and 60 years of age |
| CSA |
0.20 |
P=NS |
| physical activity
diary |
0.74 |
p < 0.000 |
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 28. Postmenopausal Osteopenia PAQ (Activity Questionnaire-AQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Suleiman and Nelson 1997(62) |
Relationships between AQ and four day activity diary and VO2 max using treadmill ergometer
(Pearson correlation coefficients) |
26 perimeno-
pausal women; 43-54 years of age |
Correlation coefficients of PA based on diaries and AQ
| Walking |
0.06 |
NS |
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 29. Quantitative physical activity recall questions (QPAR)-Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study-1982 and baseline
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Oliveria et al 1996(63) |
Relationship between PA levels (created from weekly energy expenditure from QPAR) and Maximal exercise treadmill time
(correlation coefficients) |
7579 predomin-antly white, married, college-educated men; 20-80 years of age |
| Baseline PA levels |
0.41 |
| Follow-up PA levels in 1982 |
0.32 |
|
| Kohl et al 1988(64) |
Relationship between QPAR questions and treadmill time
(Pearson correlations) |
375 males; mean age = 47 years |
| Bicycling |
0.06 |
p=0.77 |
| Runners, walkers and
joggers |
| -Miles per workout |
0.35 |
p < 0.01 |
| -Workouts per week |
0.29 |
p < 0.01 |
| -Average time per mile |
-0.39 |
p < 0.01 |
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 30. The Short Questionnaire to assess Health�enhancing Physical activity (SQUASH)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Wendel-Vos et al 2003(65) |
Relationship between SQUASH and CSA Activity Monitor
(Spearman correlations) |
36 men and 14 women; 27-58 years of age |
Correlation: Mean activity counts (counts/min) and SQUASH activity scores
| 0.45 |
P=0.005 |
|
[Return to the Top]
Table 31. Stanford Usual Physical Activity Questionnaire (SUPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Bonnefoy et al 2001(39) |
Relationships between Stanford Usual PAQ and DLW and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max)
(Pearson and Spearman’s Correlation coefficients) |
19 men; mean age 73.4 ± 4.1 years |
| |
DLW-TEE |
VO2 max |
| SUPAQ: |
| -moderate activity |
0.65*(0.46) |
0.51*(0.35) |
| -vigorous activity |
0.63*(0.64)* |
0.62*(0.61) |
* p < 0.05
Spearman’s correlation coefficients in parentheses |
[Return to the Top]
Table 32.Techumseh Occupational Physical Activity Questionnaire (TOQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Walsh et al 2004(36) |
Relation of TEE calculated from MLTPAQ and the Tecumseh Occupational questionnaire (TOQ), to body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), and free-living TEE (DLW) (ANOVA) |
20 white and 21 black premeno-pausal women (over-weight, weight reduced and control); 20-46 years of age; 20 white and 14 black control women |
Overestimation of EE (kcals/dy)-differences between TEC/ MNLTPAQ combined, and DLW
| Overweight* |
| Black |
981±284 |
| White |
869±388 |
| Weight reduced* |
| Black |
1016±521* |
| White |
449±279 |
| Control |
| Black |
551±375 |
| White |
670±365 |
* p < 0.05
Relation between % body fat with over-estimation of EE by TEC/MNLTPAQ
| Overweight |
0.39* |
| Weight reduced |
NS |
| Controls |
NS |
(NS-correlations not given) |
| Ainsworth et al 1999(66) |
Relationship between Tecumseh Occupational questionnaire (TOQ) and direct (7-day occupational activity records and Caltrac accelerometer) and indirect (maximal oxygen uptake and percent body fat) measures of physical activity status |
46 women; 20-60 years of age |
Correlations between TOQ (other than standing) and direct Caltrac and indirect (VO2 max) were NS
Correlations between TOQ activities and occupational Activity records:
| -Walking,
not carrying anything
heavier than a briefcase |
| -METS/min/wk |
0.73*** |
| -hours/wk |
0.32* |
| Total Light |
| -MET/min/wk |
0.46*** |
| -hours/wk |
0.43** |
| Total moderate |
| -MET/min/wk |
0.37** |
| -hours/wk |
0.51*** |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
|
| Philippaerts and Lefevre 1998(6) |
Relationship between the TOQ and 2 other PAQs (the BAQ and FCQ) and principal-components of TOQ and 2 other PAQs
(component loading matrix)- no p values provided |
90 Flemish males; 30, 35 and 40 years of age |
| Component |
| TOQ |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| -EE Work |
0.91 |
-0.03 |
-0.03 |
0.33 |
0.09 |
-0.08 |
| -Work
index |
0.86 |
0.04 |
0.15 |
-0.25 |
0.13 |
-0.25 |
| -total activity
index |
0.84 |
0.06 |
0.47 |
0.05 |
0.11 |
0.08 |
| -EE daily |
0.81 |
-0.09 |
0.36 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.21 |
| -time active during leisure |
0.10 |
0.16 |
0.93 |
-0.01 |
0.08 |
-0.18 |
| -EE during active leisure |
0.21 |
0.14 |
0.92 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.19 |
|
| Wilbur et al 1993(43) |
Relationship between Tecumseh Occupational questionnaire (TOQ) and Cardiorespiratory fitness established with a Monarch bicycle ergometer, BP, Ponderosity, and Self Report activity. |
375 women, 73% white, 22% black; 33-63 years of age |
| |
Occupational EE |
| BP |
| -systolic |
-.14* |
| -diastolic |
.01 |
| Ponderosity |
.02 |
| Cardiorespiratory
Fitness |
.03 |
| Self report: |
| Activity compared to
others |
.07 |
| Overall activity |
-.10* |
* p < 0.05 |
| Ainsworth et al 1993(11) |
Relation of TOQ categories (walking) and Comparable physical activity record book occupational activities |
75 men and women; 23 to 59 years of age |
| |
Activity Units/wk |
hrs/wk |
| Walking, not carrying anything heavier
than a briefcase |
.41* |
.38* |
* p < 0.05 |
[Return to the Top]
Table 33. Walking Adherence Questionnaire
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Konradi and Lyon 2000(67) |
Relationship of questionnaire designed to measure adherence to walking regime and walking survey book and walking for exercise log book.
(Total adherence scores: actual walking behaviors/intended walking behaviors, i.e. miles or minutes or days walked) |
68 female 34 male; age 18 years or older. |
| |
Range |
M |
SD |
| TAS-Miles |
0-1.54 |
0.79 |
0.32 |
| TAS-Minutes |
0-1.55 |
0.86 |
0.30 |
| TAS-All |
0-1.55 |
0.83 |
0.29 |
TAS-Miles= total adherence scores for persons reporting miles walked
TAS-Minutes= total adherence scores for persons reporting minutes walked
TAS-All= total adherence scores for entire sample |
[Return to the Top]
Table 34. Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Kruskall et al 2004(68) |
Relationship between YPAS and derived energy expenditure due to physical activity (EEPA): Resting energy expenditure (REE) was determined using indirect calorimetry. Thermic effect of feeding (TEF) was estimated to be 10% of the Metabolizable Energy Intake (MEI). The EEPA was derived by the formula: EEPA=MEI-REE-TEF
(ANOVA) |
11 men and 17 women; 55 to 78 years of age |
| |
*EEPA |
*YPAS |
*YPAS-EEPA |
% diff |
| M |
595±103 |
625±93 |
30±123 |
-7 |
| F |
412±68 |
565±63** |
177±74 |
51 |
| M&F |
486±59 |
588±53 |
117±66 |
47 |
* in Kcals/d
** difference than EEPA p < 0.05
M = Male
F = Female
Summary Legend:
EEPA = Energy expenditure due to physical activity
REE = Resting energy expenditure
TEF = Thermic effect of feeding was estimated to be 10% of the
MEI = Metabolizable Energy Intake
The EEPA was derived by the formula: EEPA = MEI - REE - TEF
|
| Resnicow et al 2003(21) |
Relationship between YPA Dimension indices (Leisurely Walking and Moving) and
Estimated VO2 max and BMI (Pearson Correlations) |
138-African-American men and women (78% female) in the Healthy Body/Healthy Spirit Trial; 21-68 years of age |
| |
VO2 max |
BMI |
| Women |
| --Leisurely
walking |
0.05 |
0.18 |
| -Moving |
0.04 |
-0.08 |
| Men |
| --Leisurely
walking |
na |
na |
| -Moving |
0.16 |
0.16 |
all ns |
| Young et al 2001(69) |
Relationship between YPAS and 7-day PA recall scores, VO2 max, resting pulse rate, and body mass index (BMI). |
59 individuals (45% African-American(AA), 79% women); 60-80 years of age |
| |
YPAS Walking index |
| 7-day
PA recall scores |
| AA: |
| -Daily EE (kcals/y) |
-0.12 (P=0.56) |
| -Light activity |
-0.10 (P=0.64) |
| -moderate activity |
0.09 (P=0.65) |
| Non-AA |
| Daily EE (kcals/y) |
0.04 (P=0.83) |
| -Light activity |
-0.17 (P=0.36) |
| -moderate activity |
0.05 (P=0.80) |
| |
YPAS Leisurely Walking
index (units/month) |
| VO2 max |
0.10 (P=0.45) |
| Resting pulse
Rate |
-0.10 (P=0.47) |
| BMI |
0.03 (P=0.80) |
|
| Schuler et al 2001(70) |
Relationships between two administrations of YPAS and 3- or 7 day physical activity diaries; maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) and sum of three skinfold measurements.
(Spearman Correlation coefficients) |
56 men and women; 56 to 86 years of age |
| |
YPAS Walking Index (1st and 2nd Administration) |
| |
1 |
2 |
| PA diary |
| -MET/day |
.06 |
.03 |
| Skinfold |
| -Mm |
.16 |
.07 |
| VO2 max |
.07 |
.35 |
All ns |
| De Abajo et al 2001(71) |
Relationships between a Spanish version of the (YPAS) and Caltrac activity units, BMI, %BF, and weight
(correlation coefficients) |
108 (38 men and 70 women); 61-80 years of age |
| |
YPAS Leisure Walking (units/month) |
| |
R |
p |
| Weight |
0.03 |
0.771 |
| BMI |
0.05 |
0.658 |
| %BF |
0.30 |
0.003 |
| Caltrac |
0.26 |
0.013 |
|
| Harada et al 2001(23) |
Relationships between YPAS and Mini-logger Activity monitor (ML), a short physical performance battery (EPESE): lower body functioning (LBF), 6-minute walk (6M), BMI and self-report functioning/ well being measures: Physical functioning (PF), general health perceptions (GH), mental health (MH) and pain (P)
(Pearson Correlations) |
87 older adults; 61% Japanese American, 34% white, 5% African American; 65-89 years of age |
| |
YPAS total score (All subjects) |
| ML- |
| ankle |
0.46*** |
| waist |
0.52*** |
| EPESE- |
| LBF |
0.49** |
| 6-M |
0.58** |
| BMI |
-0.10 |
| PF |
0.31** |
| GH |
0.31** |
| MH |
0.24* |
| P |
0.23* |
* p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001
Summary Legend:
ML = Mini-logger activity monitor
EPESE = Short physical performance battery
LBF = Lower body functioning
6M = 6-minute walk
BMI = Self-report functioning/ well being measures
PF = Physical functioning
GH = General health perceptions
MH = Mental health
P = Pain
|
| Dipietro et al 1993(72) |
Relationships between YPAS and VO2 max, body fat, Caltrac and BMI
(Spearman rank correlation coefficients) |
14 men and 11 women; 60-86 yrs |
| |
YPAS Leisure Walk index
(units/month) |
| |
r |
P-value |
| Est VO2 max |
0.11 |
0.62 |
| Diastolic BP |
0.02 |
0.90 |
| BMI |
-0.17 |
0.42 |
| %BF |
-0.19 |
0.35 |
| Caltrac |
0.31 |
0.18 |
-counts (2.5 weekdays) |
[Return to the Top]
Table 35. Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire (ZPAQ)
| Reference |
Methods |
Sample |
Summary Results |
| Westerterp et al 1992 (abstract)(73) |
Relationships between ZPAQ administered twice (2nd administration 4 months later=ZPAQ+4) and TEE calculated with RMR and DLW over 14 days.
(correlations) |
21 survivors of the 1985 survey of the Zutphen cohort 65-84 years of age in 1985 |
Abstract only:
Correlation between measured activity level (TEE/RMR) and ZPAQ+4 was significant (r=0.61; p < 0.01) |
[Return to the Top]
Abbreviations of Terms
- BF - body fat
- BMI - body mass index
- CSA - Computer Science and Applications, Inc. Monitor
- Caltrac - Caltrac accelerometer
- DLW - doubly labeled water
- EE - energy expenditure
- EI - energy intake
- PA - physical activity
- PAQ - physical activity questionnaire
- REE - resting energy expenditure
- TEE - total energy expenditure
- VO2 max - maximum oxygen consumption
[Return to the Top]
Reference List
- Ainsworth BE, Bassett DR, Jr., Strath SJ et al. Comparison of three methods for measuring the time spent in physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:S457-S464.
- Staten LK, Taren DL, Howell WH et al. Validation of the Arizona Activity Frequency Questionnaire using doubly labeled water. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1959-67.
- Brownbill RA, Lindsey C, Crncevic-Orlic Z, Ilich JZ. Dual hip bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: geometry and effect of physical activity. Calcif Tissue Int 2003;73:217-24.
- Elley cr, Kerse N.M., Swinburn B, Arroll B. Measuring Physical activity in primary health care research: validity and reliability of two questionnaires. New Zealand Family Practice 2003;30:171-80.
- Philippaerts RM, Westerterp KR, Lefevre J. Doubly labelled water validation of three physical activity questionnaires. Int J Sports Med 1999;20:284-9.
- Philippaerts RM, Lefevre J. Reliability and validity of three physical activity questionnaires in Flemish males. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:982-90.
- Pols MA, Peeters PH, Kemper HC, Collette HJ. Repeatability and relative validity of two physical activity questionnaires in elderly women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:1020-5.
- Richardson MT, Ainsworth BE, Wu HC, Jacobs DR, Jr., Leon AS. Ability of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC)/Baecke Questionnaire to assess leisure-time physical activity. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:685-93.
- Miller DJ, Freedson PS, Kline GM. Comparison of activity levels using the Caltrac accelerometer and five questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994;26:376-82.
- Jacobs DR, Jr., Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25:81-91.
- Ainsworth BE, Jacobs DR, Jr., Leon AS, Richardson MT, Montoye HJ. Assessment of the accuracy of physical activity questionnaire occupational data. J Occup Med 1993;35:1017-27.
- Rauh MJ, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Sallis JF, Gleghorn A. Reliability and validity of self-reported physical activity in Latinos. Int J Epidemiol 1992;21:966-71.
- Albanes D, Conway JM, Taylor PR, Moe PW, Judd J. Validation and comparison of eight physical activity questionnaires. Epidemiology 1990;1:65-71.
- Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Sallis JF, Rauh MJ, Barrington E. Correlates of change in walking for exercise: an exploratory analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 1992;63:425-34.
- Pols MA, Peeters PH, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB et al. Validity and repeatability of a modified Baecke questionnaire on physical activity. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:381-8.
- Voorrips LE, Ravelli AC, Dongelmans PC, Deurenberg P, van Staveren WA. A physical activity questionnaire for the elderly. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991;23:974-9.
- Yore MM1, Ham SA1, Kohl HWIF, Ainsworth BEF, LaMonte M. Reliability and Validity of BRFSS Walking Questions. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 2004;Volume 36(5):p S111 (abstr).
- Craig CL, Russell SJ, Cameron C. Reliability and validity of Canada's Physical Activity Monitor for assessing trends. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:1462-7.
- Norman A, Bellocco R, Bergstrom A, Wolk A. Validity and reproducibility of self-reported total physical activity--differences by relative weight. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:682-8.
- Jacobs DR, Jr., Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25:81-91.
- Resnicow K, McCarty F, Blissett D, Wang T, Heitzler C, Lee RE. Validity of a modified CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire among African-Americans. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1537-45.
- Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, Haskell WL, Gillis D, Ritter PL. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1126-41.
- Harada ND, Chiu V, King AC, Stewart AL. An evaluation of three self-report physical activity instruments for older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:962-70.
- Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL et al. Validity and repeatability of a simple index derived from the short physical activity questionnaire used in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutr 2003;6:407-13.
- Pols MA, Peeters PH, Ocke MC, Slimani N, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Collette HJ. Estimation of reproducibility and relative validity of the questions included in the EPIC Physical Activity Questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 1997;26 Suppl 1:S181-S189.
- Pols MA, Peeters PH, Ocke MC et al. Relative validity and repeatability of a new questionnaire on physical activity. Prev Med 1997;26:37-43.
- Pols MA, Peeters PH, Kemper HC, Collette HJ. Repeatability and relative validity of two physical activity questionnaires in elderly women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:1020-5.
- Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Mitchell J, Hennings S, Day NE. Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:168-74.
- Leon AS, Jacobs DR, Jr., Debacker G, Taylor HL. Relationship of physical characteristics and life habits to treadmill exercise capacity. Am J Epidemiol 1981;113:653-60.
- Chasan-Taber L, Erickson JB, Nasca PC, Chasan-Taber S, Freedson PS. Validity and reproducibility of a physical activity questionnaire in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:987-92.
- Gregg EW, Kriska AM, Salamone LM et al. Correlates of quantitative ultrasound in the Women's Healthy Lifestyle Project. Osteoporos Int 1999;10:416-24.
- Kriska AM, Sandler RB, Cauley JA, LaPorte RE, Hom DL, Pambianco G. The assessment of historical physical activity and its relation to adult bone parameters. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:1053-63.
- Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1381-95.
- Ainsworth BE, Sternfeld B, Richardson MT, Jackson K. Evaluation of the kaiser physical activity survey in women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1327-38.
- Stel VS, Smit JH, Pluijm SM, Visser M, Deeg DJ, Lips P. Comparison of the LASA Physical Activity Questionnaire with a 7-day diary and pedometer. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:252-8.
- Walsh MC, Hunter GR, Sirikul B, Gower BA. Comparison of self-reported with objectively assessed energy expenditure in black and white women before and after weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:1013-9.
- Conway JM, Irwin ML, Ainsworth BE. Estimating energy expenditure from the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity and Tecumseh Occupational Activity questionnaires - a doubly labeled water validation. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:392-9.
- Tuero C, De Paz JA, Marquez S. Relationship of measures of leisure time physical activity to physical fitness indicators in Spanish adults. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001;41:62-7.
- Bonnefoy M, Normand S, Pachiaudi C, Lacour JR, Laville M, Kostka T. Simultaneous validation of ten physical activity questionnaires in older men: a doubly labeled water study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:28-35.
- Elosua R, Garcia M, Aguilar A, Molina L, Covas MI, Marrugat J. Validation of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire In Spanish Women. Investigators of the MARATDON Group. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1431-7.
- Starling RD, Matthews DE, Ades PA, Poehlman ET. Assessment of physical activity in older individuals: a doubly labeled water study. J Appl Physiol 1999;86:2090-6.
- Richardson MT, Leon AS, Jacobs DR, Jr., Ainsworth BE, Serfass R. Comprehensive evaluation of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994;47:271-81.
- Wilbur J, Holm K, Dan A. A quantitative survey to measure energy expenditure in midlife women. J Nurs Meas 1993;1:29-40.
- Kriska AM, Knowler WC, LaPorte RE et al. Development of questionnaire to examine relationship of physical activity and diabetes in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care 1990;13:401-11.
- Roeykens J, Rogers R, Meeusen R, Magnus L, Borms J, de Meirleir K. Validity and reliability in a Flemish population of the WHO-MONICA Optional Study of Physical Activity Questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:1071-5.
- Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Sallis JF, Rauh MJ, Barrington E. Correlates of change in walking for exercise: an exploratory analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport 1992;63:425-34.
- Weiss TW, Slater CH, Green LW, Kennedy VC, Albright DL, Wun CC. The validity of single-item, self-assessment questions as measures of adult physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1123-9.
- Wolf AM, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA et al. Reproducibility and validity of a self-administered physical activity questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:991-9.
- Littman AJ, White E, Kristal AR, Patterson RE, Satia-Abouta J, Potter JD. Assessment of a one-page questionnaire on long-term recreational physical activity. Epidemiology 2004;15:105-13.
- George JD. Alternative approach to maximal exercise testing and VO2 max prediction in college students. Res Q Exerc Sport 1996;67:452-7.
- Singh PN, Fraser GE, Knutsen SF, Lindsted KD, Bennett HW. Validity of a physical activity questionnaire among African-American Seventh-day Adventists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:468-75.
- Bassett DR, Jr., Cureton AL, Ainsworth BE. Measurement of daily walking distance-questionnaire versus pedometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1018-23.
- Singh PN, Tonstad S, Abbey DE, Fraser GE. Validity of selected physical activity questions in white Seventh-day Adventists and non-Adventists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:1026-37.
- Ainsworth BE, Leon AS, Richardson MT, Jacobs DR, Paffenbarger RS, Jr. Accuracy of the College Alumnus Physical Activity Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1403-11.
- Washburn RA, Goldfield SR, Smith KW, McKinlay JB. The validity of self-reported exercise-induced sweating as a measure of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:107-13.
- Siconolfi SF, Lasater TM, Snow RC, Carleton RA. Self-reported physical activity compared with maximal oxygen uptake. Am J Epidemiol 1985;122:101-5.
- LaPorte RE, Black-Sandler R, Cauley JA, Link M, Bayles C, Marks B. The assessment of physical activity in older women: analysis of the interrelationship and reliability of activity monitoring, activity surveys, and caloric intake. J Gerontol 1983;38:394-7.
- Washburn RA, McAuley E, Katula J, Mihalko SL, Boileau RA. The physical activity scale for the elderly (PASE): evidence for validity. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:643-51.
- Washburn RA, Ficker JL. Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): the relationship with activity measured by a portable accelerometer. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1999;39:336-40.
- Washburn RA, Smith KW, Jette AM, Janney CA. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE): development and evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:153-62.
- Aadahl M, Jorgensen T. Validation of a new self-report instrument for measuring physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1196-202.
- Suleiman S, Nelson M. Validation in London of a physical activity questionnaire for use in a study of postmenopausal osteopaenia. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997;51:365-72.
- Oliveria SA, Kohl HW, III, Trichopoulos D, Blair SN. The association between cardiorespiratory fitness and prostate cancer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996;28:97-104.
- Kohl HW, Blair SN, Paffenbarger RS, Jr., Macera CA, Kronenfeld JJ. A mail survey of physical activity habits as related to measured physical fitness. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:1228-39.
- Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1163-9.
- Ainsworth BE, Richardson MT, Jacobs DR, Jr., Leon AS, Sternfeld B. Accuracy of recall of occupational physical activity by questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:219-27.
- Konradi DB, Lyon BL. Measuring adherence to a self-care fitness walking routine. J Community Health Nurs 2000;17:159-69.
- Kruskall LJ, Campbell WW, Evans WJ. The Yale Physical Activity Survey for older adults: Predictions in the energy expenditure due to physical activity. J Am Diet Assoc 2004;104:1251-7.
- Young DR, Jee SH, Appel LJ. A comparison of the Yale Physical Activity Survey with other physical activity measures. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:955-61.
- Schuler PB, Richardson MT, Ochoa P, Wang MQ. Accuracy and repeatability of the Yale physical activity survey in assessing physical activity of older adults. Percept Mot Skills 2001;93:163-77.
- De Abajo S, Larriba R, Marquez S. Validity and reliability of the Yale Physical Activity Survey in Spanish elderly. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001;41:479-85.
- Dipietro L, Caspersen CJ, Ostfeld AM, Nadel ER. A survey for assessing physical activity among older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993;25:628-42.
- Westerterp KR, Saris WH, bloemberg BPM, Kempen CJ, Caspersen C, Kromhout D. Validation of the Zutphen physical activity questionnaire for the elderly with double labled water. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 1992;24:S68 (abstr).
[Return to the Top]
|
|
