MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2270992029

IPAQ interview version: convergent validity with accelerometers and comparison of physical activity and sedentary time levels with the self-administered version.

2016· article· en· W2270992029 on OpenAlexaff
Delfien Van Dyck, Greet Cardon, Bénédicte Deforche, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Movement Disorders
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightPhysical activityConvergent validityPsychologySedentary behaviorActivity monitorYoung adultPhysical therapyMedicineGerontologyObesityClinical psychologyPsychometricsInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This study aimed to assess convergent validity of International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) interview (long form, last seven days), and to examine differences in reported physical activity and sedentary time between the self-administered and interview versions of the long IPAQ (last seven days); and whether these differences depend on gender, age, educational level and weight status. METHODS: In total, 542 Belgian adults (45.3% male, 43.8±12.1 years) completed the IPAQ self-administered version. Data of these adults were compared with data of 542 adults (45.2% male, 43.5±12.3 years) who completed the IPAQ interview version and wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days. Samples were matched on gender, age, education, neighborhood characteristics and time of data collection. RESULTS: Convergent validity of the IPAQ interview version was moderate for total physical activity (Spearman ρ=0.37, P<0.001) and high for sedentary time (Spearman ρ=0.67; P<0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that systematic and proportional biases were present for total physical activity; for sedentary time only systematic bias was present. Adults who completed the self-administered IPAQ reported higher means for most types of physical activity and less sedentary time than those who completed the IPAQ interview version. Differences between the two IPAQ versions were larger in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults. CONCLUSION: Convergent validity of assessing total physical activity using IPAQ interview was similar to previous studies examining validity of the IPAQ, but stronger results were found for sedentary time. In general, and especially in males, lower-educated, older and overweight/obese adults, the use of the IPAQ interview version assessed by trained researchers, should be recommended to collect self-reported data on physical activity and sedentary time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207