IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i17p6139-d403169.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agreement between the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Accelerometry in Adults with Orthopaedic Injury

Author

Listed:
  • William G. Veitch

    (Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia)

  • Rachel E. Climie

    (Sports Cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne 3004, Australia)

  • Belinda J. Gabbe

    (Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia
    Health Data Research UK, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea SA2 8QA, UK)

  • David W. Dunstan

    (Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne 3004, Australia)

  • Neville Owen

    (Behavioural Epidemiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne 3004, Australia
    Swinburne Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne 3122, Australia)

  • Christina L. Ekegren

    (Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Australia
    Physical Activity Laboratory, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne 3004, Australia
    Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred, Melbourne 3004, Australia
    Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent Living (RAIL) Research Centre, Monash University, Frankston 3199, Australia)

Abstract

Orthopaedic injury can lead to decreased physical activity. Valid measures for assessing physical activity are therefore needed in this population. The aim of this study was to determine the agreement and concordance between the International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form (IPAQ) and device-measured physical activity and sitting time in orthopaedic injury patients. Adults with isolated upper or lower limb fracture ( n = 46; mean age of 40.5 years) wore two activity monitors (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and activPAL) for 10 days, from 2 weeks post-discharge. The IPAQ was also completed for a concurrent 7-day period. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots were calculated to compare walking/stepping time, total METmins, and sitting time. The IPAQ overestimated device-derived walking time (mean difference = 2.34 ± 7.33 h/week) and total METmins (mean difference = 767 ± 1659 METmins/week) and underestimated sitting time (mean difference = −2.26 ± 3.87 h/day). There was fair concordance between IPAQ-reported and device-measured walking (ρ = 0.34) and sitting time (ρ = 0.38) and moderate concordance between IPAQ-reported and device-measured METmins (ρ = 0.43). In patients with orthopaedic injury, the IPAQ overestimates physical activity and underestimates sitting time. Higher agreement was observed in the forms of activity (walking, total PA and sitting) commonly performed by this patient group.

Suggested Citation

  • William G. Veitch & Rachel E. Climie & Belinda J. Gabbe & David W. Dunstan & Neville Owen & Christina L. Ekegren, 2020. "Agreement between the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Accelerometry in Adults with Orthopaedic Injury," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6139-:d:403169
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6139/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/17/6139/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael E. Reichenheim, 2004. "Confidence intervals for the kappa statistic," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 4(4), pages 421-428, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Interrater reliability and convergent validity of F1000Prime peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2415-2426, December.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0038982 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:17:p:6139-:d:403169. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.