Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the sedentary behaviour questionnaire among Arabic speaking healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjective evaluation of sedentary behaviour using questionnaires can be used to measure sedentary time. The Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire (SBQ) is a valid and reliable way to measure sedentary time. Our objectives were to: 1) linguistically and culturally adapt the SBQ to the Arabic-speaking populations; and 2) assess its psychometric properties. The SBQ translation and cross-cultural adaptation were performed according to published guidelines. The psychometric properties of the translated version were investigated in a sample of ambulatory healthy adults from the general population in Jordan. The Arabic version of the SBQ was produced (SBQ-Ar) with good face and content validity. In terms of convergent validity, significant Spearman’s correlations were found between weekdays total sedentary hours and item 26 of the Arabic version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-Ar) (rho = 0.26; p < 0.001); and between weekends total sedentary hours and IPAQ-Ar’s item 27 (rho = 0.38, p < 0.01). Regarding discriminant validity, there were no significant differences in total sedentary hours/week with respect to body mass index and physical activity. There was a significant negative correlation between participants’ age and total sedentary hours/week (rho = −0.23, p < 0.01). Regarding reliability, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for weekdays, weekends, and all days were as follows: ICC(2,1) (95% CI) = 0.83 (0.65–0.91); 0.86 (0.74–0.92); and 0.85 (0.70–0.92) respectively. For internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha for weekdays and weekend items were 0.41 and 0.42, respectively. This study translated and culturally adapted the SBQ into Arabic, but the resulting questionnaire demonstrated inadequate internal consistency, requiring further research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".