The Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire for People with Disabilities: Validity and Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an urgent need for valid and reliable measures of physical activity (PA) participation for use among people with physical and/or sensory disabilities. This study involved adapting the Leisure Time PA Questionnaire for People with Spinal Cord Injury for use in individuals with disabilities (i.e., the LTPAQ-D) and performing a preliminary evaluation of its content validity, construct validity, and same-day test–retest reliability in people with disabilities. User interviews assessed the content validity (n = 5). A cross-sectional study assessed the construct validity and same-day test–retest reliability (n = 27, 45 ± 21 years). Participants completed the LTPAQ-D, other self-report measures of aerobic and strength training PA, as well as tests of cardiorespiratory fitness (i.e., peak oxygen consumption (V˙O2peak)) and muscular strength. LTPAQ-D measures of min/week of aerobic LTPA, aerobic moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), and strength training shared medium-to-large correlations with other self-report measures of aerobic and strength training PA (r = 0.458–0.942, ps < 0.01). After controlling for age, aerobic LTPA and MVPA shared moderate partial correlations with V˙O2peak (r = 0.341 and 0.356, respectively). Min/week of strength training, measured by the LTPAQ-D, was associated with predicted maximal strength on the chest press (r = 0.621, p = 0.009). All LTPAQ-D measures demonstrated good-to-excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlations = 0.709–0.948, ps < 0.01). This study provides preliminary evidence of the validity and reliability of the LTPAQ-D as a measure of LTPA among people with disabilities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".