MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400996043 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082275

Development and validation of the Global Adolescent and Child Physical Activity Questionnaire (GAC-PAQ) in 14 countries: study protocol

2024· article· en· W4400996043 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard Larouche, Mahdi Rostami Haji Abadi, Salomé Aubert, Jasmin Bhawra, Javier Brazo‐Sayavera, Valerie Carson, Rachel C. Colley, Christine Delisle Nyström, Dale Esliger, Ryan Harper-Brown, Silvia A. González, Alejandra Jáuregui, Piyawat Katewongsa, Anuradha Khadilkar, Geoff Kira, Nicholas Kuzik, Yang Liu, Marie Löf, Tom Loney, Taru Manyanga, Tawonga Mwase‐Vuma, Adewale L. Oyeyemi, John J. Reilly, Justin Richards, Karen Roberts, Olga L. Sarmiento, Diego Augusto Santos Silva, Melody Smith, Narayan Subedi, Leigh M. Vanderloo, Dyah Anantalia Widyastari, Oliver W.A. Wilson, Stephen Heung‐Sang Wong, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaStatistics CanadaAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioToronto Metropolitan UniversityActive Healthy KidsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersFaculty of Education, Victoria University of WellingtonFundación Gonzalo Río ArronteVictoria UniversityThai Health Promotion FoundationConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchVictoria University of Wellington
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityAdaptation (eye)Reliability (semiconductor)Protocol (science)Low and middle income countriesSociocultural evolutionDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthMedical educationPhysical therapyPathologyAlternative medicineEconomic growthPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Global surveillance of physical activity (PA) of children and adolescents with questionnaires is limited by the use of instruments developed in high-income countries (HICs) lacking sociocultural adaptation, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); under-representation of some PA domains; and omission of active play, an important source of PA. Addressing these limitations would help improve international comparisons, and facilitate the cross-fertilisation of ideas to promote PA. We aim to develop and assess the reliability and validity of the app-based Global Adolescent and Child Physical Activity Questionnaire (GAC-PAQ) among 8-17 years old in 14 LMICs and HICs representing all continents; and generate the 'first available data' on active play in most participating countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our study involves eight stages: (1) systematic review of psychometric properties of existing PA questionnaires for children and adolescents; (2) development of the GAC-PAQ (first version); (3) content validity assessment with global experts; (4) cognitive interviews with children/adolescents and parents in all 14 countries; (5) development of a revised GAC-PAQ; (6) development and adaptation of the questionnaire app (application); (7) pilot-test of the app-based GAC-PAQ; and, (8) main study with a stratified, sex-balanced and urban/rural-balanced sample of 500 children/adolescents and one of their parents/guardians per country. Participants will complete the GAC-PAQ twice to assess 1-week test-retest reliability and wear an ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer for 9 days to test concurrent validity. To assess convergent validity, subsamples (50 adolescents/country) will simultaneously complete the PA module from existing international surveys. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals from research ethics boards and relevant organisations will be obtained in all participating countries. We anticipate that the GAC-PAQ will facilitate global surveillance of PA in children/adolescents. Our project includes a robust knowledge translation strategy sensitive to social determinants of health to inform inclusive surveillance and PA interventions globally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.368 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207