Validity and reliability of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A) in individuals with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the criterion validity, internal consistency, reliability and cut-point for the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) and Adolescents (PAQ-A) in children and adolescents with congenital heart disease-a special population at high cardiovascular risk in whom physical activity has not been extensively evaluated. METHODS: We included 84 participants (13.6±2.9 yrs, 50% female) with simple (37%), moderate (31%), or severe congenital heart disease (27%), as well as cardiac transplant recipients (6%), from BC Children's Hospital, Canada. They completed the PAQ-C (≤11yrs, n = 28) or-A (≥12yrs, n = 56), and also wore a triaxial accelerometer (GT3X+ or GT9X) over the right hip for 7 days (n = 59 met valid wear time criteria). RESULTS: Median daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was 46.9 minutes per day (IQR 31.6-61.8) and 25% met physical activity guidelines defined as ≥60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per day. Median PAQ-score was 2.6 (IQR 1.9-3.0). PAQ-Scores were significantly related to accelerometry-derived metrics of physical activity (rho = 0.44-0.55, all p<0.01) and sedentary behaviour (rho = -0.53, p<0.001). Internal consistency was high (α = 0.837), as was reliability (stability) of PAQ-Scores over a 4-months period (ICC = 0.73, 95%CI 0.55-0.84; p<0.001). We identified that a PAQ-Score cut-point of 2.87 discriminates between those meeting physical guidelines and those that do not in the combined PAQ-C and-A samples (area under the curve = 0.80 (95%CI 0.67-0.92). CONCLUSION: Validity and reliability of the PAQ in children and adolescents with CHD was comparable to or stronger than previous studies in healthy children. Therefore, the PAQ may be used to estimate general levels of physical activity in children and adolescents with CHD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".