Validation of a Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool for Adults With Limited Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool for the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program (EFNEP). DESIGN: Phase 1: test-retest reliability based on 2 survey administrations; Phase 2: concurrent validity triangulated with accelerometer data; Phase 3: sensitivity to change and responsiveness and secondary analysis of EFNEP national dataset. SETTING: Community centers and/or EFNEP classes across the US. PARTICIPANTS: Phase 1: 75 adults; Phase 2: 106 adults; and Phase 3: 53,393 adults. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change and responsiveness. ANALYSIS: Test-retest reliability: intraclass correlation, κ, and Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC); concurrent validity: SCC; sensitivity to change: standardized response mean, effect size, and paired t tests; responsiveness: minimal important difference. RESULTS: The Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool's test-retest results were moderate (intraclass correlation = 0.77-0.84; κ = 0.55-0.61; SCC = 0.59-0.84). Concurrent validity differed by questions but was highest for the muscle-strengthening question (SCC = 0.87). All questions demonstrated moderate sensitivity to change and responsiveness. Patterns between non-Hispanics and Hispanics were similar. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The study resulted in a brief, validated, nationally tested questionnaire for evaluating physical activity changes for non-Hispanic adults with limited resources, which could be included in short surveys. It could be further validated among other populations.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".