Reliability and Validity of the Dutch Physical Activity Questionnaires for Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to validate the Dutch Physical Activity Questionnaires for Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A). METHODS: After adjustment of the original Canadian PAQ-C and PAQ-A (i.e. translation/back-translation and evaluation by expert committee), content validity of both PAQs was assessed and calculated using item-level (I-CVI) and scale-level (S-CVI) content validity indexes. Inter-item and inter-rater reliability of 196 PAQ-C and 95 PAQ-A filled in by both children or adolescents and their parent, were evaluated. Inter-item reliability was calculated by Cronbach's alpha (α) and inter-rater reliability was examined by percent observed agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Concurrent validity of PAQ-A was examined in a subsample of 28 obese and 16 normal-weight children by comparing it with concurrently measured physical activity using a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test for the assessment of peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). RESULTS: For both PAQs, I-CVI ranged 0.67-1.00. S-CVI was 0.89 for PAQ-C and 0.90 for PAQ-A. A total of 192 PAQ-C and 94 PAQ-A were fully completed by both child and parent. Cronbach's α was 0.777 for PAQ-C and 0.758 for PAQ-A. Percent agreement ranged 59.9-74.0% for PAQ-C and 51.1-77.7% for PAQ-A, and weighted κ ranged 0.48-0.69 for PAQ-C and 0.51-0.68 for PAQ-A. The correlation between total PAQ-A score and VO2 peak - corrected for age, gender, height and weight - was 0.516 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both PAQs have an excellent content validity, an acceptable inter-item reliability and a moderate to good strength of inter-rater agreement. In addition, total PAQ-A score showed a moderate positive correlation with VO2 peak. Both PAQs have an acceptable to good reliability and validity, however, further validity testing is recommended to provide a more complete assessment of both PAQs.
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".