Physical Activity Measurement In Older Adult Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) interventions among older adults have been shown to positively impact PA behavior and other health outcomes. Measurement of PA is often overlooked and the degree to which studies employ reliable and valid measures of PA is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the measurement tools used in older adults PA interventions, including both self-report measures and objective measures (SR and OM). In addition, this review examined the implications that the use of these different measurement tools has on study findings. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using four electronic research databases (Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and EBSCO) to identify published intervention studies measuring the PA behavior of older adults (65+ years). Studies were eligible if PA was a primary or secondary outcome and included a comparison group. Data describing measurement methods and properties were extracted and reviewed. Meta-analysis procedures were performed using random effects models and calculations of Cohen’s d. RESULTS: Of the 44 studies identified, 32 used SR, 9 used OM, and 3 used both measures. Twenty-nine percent of studies used a PA measure that had neither established validity nor reliability, and only 63% of measures had established reliability and validity. Only 57% of measures had population specific reliability and 66% had population specific validity. The meta-analysis revealed a significant and larger effect size for validated SR (d=0.395, 95% CI: 0.269, 0.521) compared to a non-significant and smaller effect size for validated OM (d= 0.299, 95% CI: -0.003, 0.520). CONCLUSION: A majority of PA interventions among older adults are employing SR, of which many have no evidence of validity and reliability. Further, there is a large discrepancy in the effect of these interventions on PA when comparing SR to OM suggesting the evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions is unclear. It is strongly recommended that future researchers utilize more reliable and valid measures of PA (i.e. OM) with established evidence of psychometric properties.
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 | 0.054 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".