Measurement of physical activity in older adult interventions: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interventions to promote physical activity (PA) among older adults can positively impact PA behaviour and other health outcomes. Measurement of PA must be valid and reliable; however, the degree to which studies employ valid and reliable measures of PA is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the measurement tools used in interventions to increase PA among older adults (65+ years), including both self-report measures and objective measures. In addition, the implications of these different measurement tools on study results were evaluated and discussed. METHODS: Four electronic research databases (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Web of Science and EBSCO) were used to identify published intervention studies measuring the PA behaviour of adults over 65 years of age. Studies were eligible if: (1) PA was an outcome; (2) there was a comparison group and (3) the manuscript was published in English. Data describing measurement methods and properties were extracted and reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 44 studies included in this systematic review, 32 used self-report measures, 9 used objective measures and 3 used both measures. 29% of studies used a PA measure that had neither established validity nor reliability, and only 63% of measures in the interventions had established both validity and reliability. Only 57% of measures had population-specific reliability and 66% had population-specific validity. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of intervention studies to help increase older adult PA used self-report measures, even though many have little evidence of validity and reliability. We recommend that future researchers utilise valid and reliable measures of PA with well-established evidence of psychometric properties such as hip-accelerometers and the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older 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 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 | 0.023 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".