Criterion Validity of Commonly Used Sedentary Behavior Questionnaires to Measure Total Sedentary Time in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Self-report questionnaires are a fast and cost-efficient method to determine habitual sedentary time (sitting/lying time while awake), but their accuracy versus thigh-worn accelerometry (criterion), which can distinguish between sitting and standing postures, is unclear. While the validity of sedentary questionnaires has previously been evaluated, they have not been investigated simultaneously in the same sample population. We tested the hypothesis that common sedentary questionnaires underpredict habitual sedentary time compared with an objective, monitor-based assessment. Methods : Ninety-three participants (30 ± 18 years, 59 females) wore the activPAL inclinometer on the midthigh 24 hr per day for 6.9 ± 0.4 days and completed the SIT-Q, Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q). Results : In comparison to the activPAL (9.9 ± 1.9 hr/day), the SIT-Q measured more time (12.9 ± 5.4 hr/day), but the SBQ (7.5 ± 3.3 hr/day), IPAQ (7.4 ± 3.0 hr/day), and PASB-Q (6.6 ± 3.0 hr/day) measured less time (all p < .001). The SIT-Q was positively and weakly correlated (ρ = .230 [95% confidence interval: .020, .422], p = .028) with the activPAL, but the SBQ, IPAQ, and PASB-Q were not (all p s > .760). Equivalence testing demonstrated poor equivalence for the SIT-Q (±40%), SBQ (±31%), IPAQ (±36%), and PASB-Q (±29%). The SIT-Q (β = −1.36), SBQ (β = −0.97), and IPAQ (β = −0.78) exhibited a negative proportional bias (all p s < .002). Conclusions : In summary, the SIT-Q, SBQ, IPAQ, and PASB-Q demonstrated poor validity. Researchers and health promoters should be cautious when implementing these self-report sedentary time questionnaires, as they may not reflect the true sedentary activity and negatively impact study results.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".