Validity of Domain-Specific Sedentary Time Using Accelerometer and Questionnaire with activPAL Criterion
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 15501175 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rina So (0000-0002-8907-1571, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, corresponding author), Tomoaki Matsuo (0000-0002-8582-2390, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 23 |
| Pages | 12774-12774 |
| Publication date | 2021-12-03 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1661-7827 • E-ISSN: 1660-4601 |
| Publisher | Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (PUBLISHER • CH) |
| DOI | 10.3390/ijerph182312774 |
| PMID | 34886498 |
| OpenAlex | W4200318094 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 37 |
Accelerometers based on the cut-point method are generally the most used in sedentary time (ST) research. However, mixed cut-points are an issue, so an accelerometer based on metabolic equivalents (METs) could be used as an alternative. This study aimed to validate a METs-based accelerometer (HJA-750C, OMRON) and a questionnaire that estimates domain-specific sedentary time measures using activPAL as a criterion value. We also examined whether measurement validity differed according to gender and occupation. We used data from 242 workers in the validation study. Participants wore activPAL on the thigh and OMRON on the waist for seven consecutive days with daily recording logs. The Workers Living Activity-time Questionnaire (WLAQ) was administered once. The domain-specific ST assessed quantities of ST during commuting, working time, non-working time on a workday, and non-workday. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Spearman's rho coefficients were then used to conduct analyses. The OMRON accelerometer showed acceptable values ( r = 0.67-0.86 and ICC of 0.63-0.87) in the overall domain-specific ST. Additionally, each measurement result suggested that working time is the most accurate domain to measure ST (ICC of 0.87 for OMRON and 0.68 for WLAQ). Moreover, there were no differences in the overall validity of the results according to gender and occupation. The METs-based accelerometer has acceptable validity for ST measurements to be used among workers. Additionally, working time may be the preferred domain for the accurate assessment of ST in both objective and subjective measurements. These results can advance the quality of the sedentary research field
Accelerometer · Body mass index · Construct validity · Criterion validity · Intraclass correlation · Physical activity · Physical medicine and rehabilitation · Physical therapy · Psychometrics · Sedentary behavior · Statistics · Waist · Computer Science · Mathematics · Medicine · Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet · Physical Activity and Health · Urban Transport and Accessibility
Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome
Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors
Amount of Time Spent in Sedentary Behaviors in the United States, 2003-2004
Measurement of Adults' Sedentary Time in Population-Based Studies
Validation of Wearable Monitors for Assessing Sedentary Behavior
A systematic review of correlates of sedentary behaviour in adults aged 18–65 years
Too Much Sitting
Sedentary Behavior and Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality
Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement Between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement
Physical Activity in the United States Measured by Accelerometer
Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Assessment
The Effect of Domain-Specific Sitting Time and Exercise Habits on Metabolic Syndrome in Japanese Workers
Validity of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) in assessing levels and change in moderate-vigorous physical activity and sedentary behaviour
Concurrent and discriminant validity of ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points to measure sedentary behaviour, activity level, and posture in office work
The contribution of office work to sedentary behaviour associated risk
| Highly cited | No |
|---|