Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Get Active Questionnaire for Pregnancy and its companion form to assess physical activity readiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Engaging in physical activity is essential for a healthy pregnancy. A reliable tool is necessary to enhance the assessment and counseling of safe physical activity. This study aimed to translate the original English Get Active Questionnaire for Pregnancy (GAQ-P) and its companion Health Care Provider Consultation Form for Prenatal Physical Activity (cHCP-CF-PPA) into simplified Chinese language and evaluate the psychometric properties in Chinese pregnant women. METHODS: The Brislin's model of translation was employed to translate the GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA tool. We conducted a cross-sectional study at a tertiary women's hospital in Shanghai, China, enrolling a convenience sample of 325 pregnant women across all trimesters to evaluate the psychometric properties of the GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA. Reliability was assessed through test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability, while validity was examined using content validity, known-groups validity, and criterion validity. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated using PARmed-X for Pregnancy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Regarding content validity, the GAQ-P had an average S-CVI/UA of 0.81 (I-CVIs: 0.83-1.0), while the cHCP-CF-PPA exhibited an average S-CVI/UA of 0.87 (I-CVIs: 0.83-1.0). The GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA scores effectively distinguished women recommended for physical activity from those with contraindications. The Spearman's correlations between the GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA and the PARmed-X for Pregnancy were 0.851 for absolute contraindications and 0.847 for relative contraindications. The test-retest reliability score was 0.759 for physical activity contraindications, and 0.953 for inter-rater reliability. The sensitivity of the GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA was determined to be 90.00%, with a specificity of 98.31%. The positive predictive value was 78.26%, while the negative predictive value reached 99.32%. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the GAQ-P/cHCP-CF-PPA is a reliable and valid tool for assessing physical activity readiness in pregnant women.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".