Comparison between Self-Reported and Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity in Young versus Older Children

2Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Physical inactivity in children is a major public health challenge, for which valid physical activity assessment tools are needed. Wearable devices provide a means for objective assessment of children’s physical activity, but they are often not adopted because of issues such as cost, comfort, and privacy. In this context, self-reporting tools could be employed, but their validity in relation to a child’s age is understudied. We present the agreement of one of the most popular self-reporting tools, the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) with accelerometer-measured physical activity in 9-year-old versus 12-year-old children, wearing an accelerometer-based wearable device for seven consecutive days. We study the relationship between the PAQ-C and accelerometer scores using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots in a sample of 131 children included for analysis. Overall, there was correlation between PAQ-C score and physical activity measures for the 12-year-old children (rho = 0.47 for total physical activity, rho = 0.43 for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, rho = 0.41 for steps, p < 0.01), but not for the 9-year-old children (rho = 0.08 for total physical activity, rho = 0.21 for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, rho = 0.19 for steps, p > 0.05). All PAQ-C items other than item 3 (activity at recess) did not reach significance in correlation with accelerometry for the 9-year-old children (p > 0.05). Therefore, the use of wearable devices for more objective assessment of physical activity in younger children should be preferred.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Triantafyllidis, A., Alexiadis, A., Soutos, K., Fischer, T., Votis, K., & Tzovaras, D. (2021). Comparison between Self-Reported and Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity in Young versus Older Children. Digital, 1(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital1020008

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free