Quantifying Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Scoping Review of Assessment Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Methodologies for assessing behavior form the foundation of health promotion and disease prevention. Physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) assessment methodologies have predominantly been developed for adults without an intellectual disability (ID), raising credibility concerns for adults with ID. The purpose was to synthesize the current state of assessment methodologies for quantifying PA and SB volume in the free-living setting for adults with an ID. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, eleven databases were searched through December 2023, yielding 8174 records. Data were extracted in Covidence (v.2.0), obtaining quantified PA and SB volume and assessment methodology characteristics across data collection and analysis, including tool(s) and technique(s) used, preparatory actions taken, instructions provided, and behavioral strategies employed during data collection. Results: Of the 8174 articles screened, 91 met the inclusion criteria. Common metrics included minutes/hours per day/week and steps per day/week. Despite 80% of the studies using objective techniques, substantial variation existed across studies regarding wearable models, sampling frequency and epoch length settings, calibration protocols, wearable placements, and data processing techniques. Limited studies provided instructions that did not exclusively rely on spoken language. Behavioral strategies varied, including self-monitoring, providing assistance or supervision, administering questionnaires verbally, issuing reminders, and offering monetary incentives. Conclusions: This review underscores the need for greater consistency and accessibility in PA and SB assessment methodology for adults with ID. Tailored preparation, instruction, and behavioral strategies may enhance assessment viability and suitability for adults with ID, with or without caregiver or researcher involvement in the free-living setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".