A pilot study: Validity and reliability of the CSEP−PATH PASB-Q and a new leisure time physical activity questionnaire to assess physical activity and sedentary behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of 2 newly developed physical activity questionnaires: the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (PASB-Q) and a newly modified Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (mLTPA-Q). These questionnaires were compared with objective measurements of physical activity and fitness (accelerometry and physiological assessments) in 35 adults, before and after a week of daily living activity. Objectively measured moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity (MVPA) was moderately correlated with the PASB-Q's physical activity vital sign (PAVS) (r = 0.50, p = 0.004) and the mLTPA-Q (r = 0.56, p = 0.001). Bland-Altman plots suggest minimal bias from self-reported to objective measures of MVPA. The ability of PAVS to accurately distinguish who does and does not achieve Canadian physical activity guidelines was 83% and 60%, respectively, compared with 82% and 73% of the mLTPA-Q. Self-reported sedentary time was greatly underestimated in the PASB-Q compared with the objective measure (6.4 ± 3.5 vs 12.2 ± 1.2 h/day). The results of this study suggest the PASB-Q and mLTPA-Q are valid and reliable measures of adult physical activity and provide reasonable indication of those individuals who meet physical activity guidelines. Future questionnaire development should take into account the underestimation of time spent engaging in sedentary activities.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".