Exploring Validity And Reliability Of Physical Activity Questionnaire For Children (PAQ-C) And Modifications Using Accelerometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-report physical activity (PA) tools are problematic in children and yet remain important, as they are inexpensive and easy to administer. The PAQ-C is a self-report instrument for children aged 8-14 years that has been validated previously using accelerometry (1 minute epochs). The Action Schools! BC (AS! BC) study used the PAQ-C and accelerometry to assess PA but modified the first question of the PAQ-C to generate a continuous variable (minutes of PA/day). PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore, 1) concurrent validity for both the PAQ-C summary score and the modified question, using accelerometry data collected every 15 seconds and 2) the psycho-metric properties of the PAQ-C. METHODS: Data were collected during the baseline phase of the AS! BC Dissemination Trial (October 2005 - January 2006). Six hundred and forty-four children consented to both the questionnaire and accelerometry assessment. Complete data were available for 313 children (aged 9.9 ± 0.6 yr). Students with a minimum of 3 days of accelerometry data collected in the same 7-day period as the PAQ-C were included in the sub-analysis (n = 44). Physical activity was measured with an ActiGraph GT1M monitor and analyzed as 15-second epochs for 3-5 days (minimum 10 hr/d). RESULTS: The PAQ-C PA score was significantly associated with accelerometry variables; minutes of MVPA/day (r =.482, p<.001), counts/day (r =.431, p<.004) and counts/min (r =.462, p<.002). Minutes of MVPA calculated from the modified Question 1 were significantly associated with MVPA/day by accelerometry (r =.316, p<.0001). Internal consistency of the PAQ-C (n = 644) was acceptable (Chronbach's alpha.755). CONCLUSION: Our analysis confirmed the validity of the PAQ-C and the modified question 1 as a stand-alone 7-day recall measure when compared to accelerometry. Thus, we suggest that the PAQ-C or its modified question 1 are viable alternatives to objective physical activity measurement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".