A systematic review of methods to measure family co‐participation in physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family environment is key in influencing children's health behaviours. Encouraging family co-participation in physical activity may therefore be an effective approach to increasing children's physical activity levels. Yet, little is known about how to best assess family co-participation in physical activity. This review summarizes methods to measure family co-participation in physical activity, which was defined as joint physical activities including at least one healthy child (0-18 years) and one other family member. Methods were identified through a systematic literature search, cross-referencing pre-selected reviews and contacting research groups. Thirty-seven measurement methods were included. Questionnaires were the most common method used, with the majority assessing frequency of co-participation and few also assessing duration and type. Reliability and internal consistency of scales were often reported, but rarely specified for the item(s) relevant to co-participation. Other methods of measuring co-participation included diaries, event history calendars, direct observations and accelerometry combined with diary, ecological momentary assessment or global positioning systems (GPS). Whilst a large number of measurement methods of family co-participation in physical activity exist, few are comprehensive and/or report acceptable psychometric properties. Future work should focus on reaching consensus in defining family co-participation in physical activity, and subsequently developing reliable and valid measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".