Validity of an Infant Tummy Time Questionnaire and Time-use Diary against the GENEActiv Accelerometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the concurrent validity of a tummy time questionnaire and time-use diary against an accelerometer measure. Participants were 29 parents and their 6-month-old infants from the Early Movers project in Edmonton, Canada. Tummy time was concurrently measured using a parental questionnaire, a time-use diary, and a validated GENEActiv accelerometer. In participants with data on all measures (n = 26), relative (Spearman’s rank correlations) and absolute (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Bland–Altman plots) concurrent validity were examined. The questionnaire (rs = 0.60) and time-use diary (rs = 0.80) tummy time measures were significantly correlated with the accelerometer measure, with large effect sizes (r > 0.50). Compared to the accelerometer measure of tummy time, a significant difference in mean rank was observed for the questionnaire measure but not for the time-use diary measure. Bland–Altman plots showed a significant mean difference in tummy time between the accelerometer and questionnaire measures (42 min/d; 95% limits of agreement: −73,157 min/d) but not between the accelerometer and time-use diary measures (2 min/d; 95% limits of agreement: −47,51 min/d). These preliminary findings indicate both subjective measures may be appropriate for infant studies examining associations with tummy time and/or comparing tummy time between samples. The time-use diary may also provide a relatively precise estimate of tummy time in prevalence studies.
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".