Reliability and Validity of Questions About Exercise in the Canadian Study of Health and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular exercise in elderly people has beneficial health effects. We examined exercise frequency and intensity from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Risk Factor Questionnaire (RFQ). The reliability and validity of these two questions individually, and when combined to form a scale, are reported. Agreement between the self-administered RFQ and an interviewer-administered Add-on Study was examined using intraclass correlations, which were 0.80 for frequency (95% CI 0.77-0.82, p < .001) and 0.75 for intensity (95% CI 0.71-0.78, p = .012). Individuals reporting high levels of exercise frequency, intensity, and a combination of the two showed a smaller proportion of adverse health markers than those reporting no regular exercise. Predictive validity assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling of mortality showed that the high and moderate levels of frequency, intensity, and combined exercise groups differed significantly (all p < .001) from the no exercise group. We have found that these exercise questions, though simple, appear reliable and valid. The finding that even comparatively crude exercise questions can demonstrate an important relationship to death suggests that the signal for exercise is a strong one, and future studies should seek to better examine mechanisms by which exercise benefit is conferred.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".