Title

Adults' past-day recall of sedentary time: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness

Document Type

Journal Article

Publisher

Lippincott Williams and Wilkinson

Faculty

Faculty of Health, Engineering and Science

School

ECU Health and Wellness Institute

RAS ID

17422

Comments

This article was originally published as: Clark, B., Winkler, E., Healy, G., Gardiner, P., Dunstan, D. , Owen, N., & Reeves, M. (2013). Adults' past-day recall of sedentary time: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 45(6), 1198-1207. Original article available here

Abstract

PURPOSE: Past-day recall rather than recall of past week or a usual/typical day may improve the validity of self-reported sedentary time measures. This study examined the test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and responsiveness of the seven-item questionnaire, Past-day Adults' Sedentary Time (PAST). METHODS: Participants (breast cancer survivors, n = 90, age = 33-75 yr, body mass index = 25-40 kg·m) in a 6-month randomized controlled trial of a lifestyle-based weight loss intervention completed the interviewer- administered PAST questionnaire about time spent sitting/lying on the previous day for work, transport, television viewing, nonwork computer use, reading, hobbies, and other purposes (summed for total sedentary time). The instrument was administered at baseline, 7 d later for test-retest reliability (n = 86), and at follow-up. ActivPAL3-assessed sit/lie time in bouts of ≥5 min during waking hours on the recall day was used as the validity criterion measure at both baseline (n = 72) and follow-up (n = 68). Analyses included intraclass correlation coefficients, Pearson's correlations (r), and Bland-Altman plots and responsiveness index. RESULTS: The PAST had fair to good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.32-0.64). At baseline, the correlation between PAST and activPAL sit/lie time was r = 0.57 (95% CI = 0.39-0.71). The mean difference between PAST at baseline and retest was -25 min (5.2%), 95% limits of agreement = -5.9 to 5.0 h, and the activPAL sit/lie time was -9 min (1.8%), 95% limits of agreement = -4.9 to 4.6 h. The PAST showed small but significant responsiveness (-0.44, 95% CI = -0.92 to -0.04); responsiveness of activPAL sit/lie time was not significant. CONCLUSION: The PAST questionnaire provided an easy-to-administer measure of sedentary time in this sample. Validity and reliability findings compare favorably with other sedentary time questionnaires. Past-day recall of sedentary time shows promise for use in future health behavior, epidemiological, and population surveillance studies.

DOI

10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182837f57

Share

 
COinS