Validity and reliability of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire among adults in Mexico.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the short-form International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) among adults in Mexico. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of 267 adult factory workers in Mexico City. Participants were 19 - 68 years of age; 48% were female. Participants wore an accelerometer for 9 consecutive days and were administered the Spanish version of the short form IPAQ on two occasions (IPAQ1 and IPAQ2, separated by 9 days). The relation and differences between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) measures obtained from IPAQ1, IPAQ2, and the accelerometer were determined using correlations, linear regression, and paired t-tests. RESULTS: IPAQ1 and IPAQ2 measures of MVPA were significantly correlated to each other (r = 0.55, P < 0.01). However, MVPA was 44 ± 408 minutes/week lower in IPAQ1 than in IPAQ2, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.08). The (min/week) measures from IPAQ1 and IPAQ2 were only modestly correlated with the accelerometer measures (r = 0.26 and r = 0.31, P < 0.01), and by comparison to accelerometer measures, MVPA values were higher when based on IPAQ1 (174 ± 357 min/week, P < 0.01) than for IPAQ2 (135 ± 360 min/week, P < 0.01). The percentage of participants who were classified as physically inactive according to the World Health Organization guidelines was 18.0% in IPAQ1, 25.1% in IPAQ2, and 28.2% based on the accelerometer. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to what has been observed in other populations, the short form IPAQ has a modest reliability and poor validity for assessing MVPA among Mexican adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".