Supplementary information files for "Content validation of the global adolescent and child physical activity questionnaire (GAC-PAQ) in low-, middle-, and high-income countries across 6 continents"
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Supplementary files for article "Content validation of the global adolescent and child physical activity questionnaire (GAC-PAQ) in low-, middle-, and high-income countries across 6 continents"<br><br><b>Background</b>: Investigators from low-, middle-, and high-income countries representing 6 continents contributed to the development of the Global Adolescent and Child Physical Activity Questionnaire (GAC-PAQ). The GAC-PAQ is designed to assess physical activity (PA) across all key domains (i.e., school, chores, work/volunteering, transport, free time, outdoor time). It aimed to address multiple gaps in global PA surveillance (e.g., omission of important PA domains, insufficient cultural adaptation, underrepresentation of rural areas in questionnaire validation studies).The purpose of this study was to assess the content validity of the GAC-PAQ among PA experts, 8- to 17-year-olds, and one of their parents/guardians, and to discuss changes made to the questionnaire based on participants’ feedback.<b>Methods</b>: Sixty-two experts in PA measurement and/or surveillance from 24 countries completed an online survey that included both closed- and open-ended questions about the content validity of the GAC-PAQ. The proportion of experts who agreed or strongly agreed with the items was calculated. Child–parent/guardian dyads from 15 countries (n = 250; 10–40 per country) participated in a structured cognitive interview to assess the clarity of the questions and response options, and they were encouraged to provide suggestions to improve clarity and facilitate completion of the questionnaire. Participating countries are: Aotearoa New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, India, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates. Interviews were conducted in 13 different languages and structured by PA domain. Generic images were included to help participants in answering questions about PA intensity.<b>Results</b>: Expert agreement with the items for each domain exceeded 75%, and their qualitative feedback was used to revise the questionnaire before cognitive interviews. In general, participants found the questionnaire to be comprehensive. Adolescents (12–17 years) found it easier than children (8–11 years) to answer the questions. Several children struggled to answer questions about the duration and intensity of activities and/or concepts related to travel modes, active trips, and organized activities. Many parents/guardians were unsure about the frequency, duration, and intensity of their children's or adolescents’ PA at school and/or recommended using more culturally relevant and appropriate images. Some participants misunderstood the concept of activities that “make you stronger” (intended to assess resistance activities) and/or struggled to differentiate between work, volunteering, and chores.<b>Conclusion</b>: Participants’ feedback was used to develop a revised, simplified, and culturally adapted GAC-PAQ, which will be pilot-tested in all 15 countries in an App that will include country-specific images and narration in local languages. Further research is needed to assess the reliability and validity of the revised GAC-PAQ.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».