Validity of the Brazilian version of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides evidence of construct validity for the Brazilian version of the Godin-Shephard Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (GSLTPAQ), a 1-item instrument used among 236 participants referred for cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (Baecke-HPA) was used to evaluate convergent and divergent validity. The self-reported measure of walking (QCAF) evaluated the convergent validity. Cardiorespiratory fitness assessed convergent validity by the Veterans Specific Activity Questionnaire (VSAQ), peak measured (VO2peak) and maximum predicted (VO2pred) oxygen uptake. Partial adjusted correlation coefficients between the GSLTPAQ, Baecke-HPA, QCAF, VO2pred and VSAQ provided evidence for convergent validity; while divergent validity was supported by the absence of correlations between the GSLTPAQ and the Occupational Physical Activity domain (Baecke-HPA). The GSLTPAQ presents level 3 of evidence of construct validity and may be useful to assess leisure-time physical activity among patients with cardiovascular disease and healthy individuals.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".