Reliability and Validity of the Past Year Total Physical Activity Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors determined the validity and reliability of their Past Year Total Physical Activity Questionnaire (PYTPAQ), which assesses the frequency, duration, and intensity of occupational, household, and recreational activities performed over the past year. The PYTPAQ was completed twice at baseline, 9 weeks apart (on average), by 154 healthy Canadian men and women aged 35-65 years for assessment of reliability. The PYTPAQ was completed again 1 year later as a self-administered questionnaire. Four times during the year, participants wore an accelerometer for 7 days and completed 7-day physical activity logs. The authors assessed validity by comparing PYTPAQ summary values with 1-year averages of the physical activity logs and accelerometer data and with physical fitness and anthropometric data measured at baseline and 1 year. Spearman correlations for reliability (metabolic equivalent-hours/week) were 0.64 for total activity, 0.70 for occupational activity, 0.73 for recreational activity, and 0.65 for household activity. For total activity, the intraclass correlation coefficient for correlation between the PYTPAQ and the 7-day physical activity logs was 0.42 (95% confidence interval: 0.28, 0.54), and for the accelerometer data it was 0.18 (95% confidence interval: 0.03, 0.32). Spearman correlations between PYTPAQ hours/week of vigorous activity and maximal oxygen uptake were 0.37 and 0.32 at baseline and follow-up, respectively. In general, the PYTPAQ has acceptable reliability and validity for measurement of past-year physical activity that is comparable to that of similar questionnaires.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".