Kurtze Nanna, Rangul Vegar, Hustvedt Bo-Egil
HUNT Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Oct 9;8:63. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-63.
There is no standardized method for the assessment of physical activity (PA). Therefore it is important to investigate the validity and comparability of different measures. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) has been developed as an instrument for cross-national assessment of PA and has been validated in 12 countries. These instruments have acceptable measurement properties for monitoring population levels of PA among 18-65 year-old adults in diverse settings. However, there are some concerns that IPAQ may over-report PA.The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reliability and validity of IPAQ, short version, last 7-days in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) population of men.
The questionnaire was administered twice to a random sample of 108 men aged 20-39 and validity by comparing results with VO2max and ActiReg, an instrument that measures PA and energy expenditure (EE). ActiReg discriminates between the body positions: stand, sit, bend forward and lie and also registers if there is motion or not in each of them or both.
Our results for reliability of the IPAQ short version were good for vigorous and fair for moderate activities. Intraclass correlations ranged from a low of 0.30 for moderate activity hours, to a high of 0.80 for sitting hours. Concerning validity, our results suggest that total IPAQ vigorous PA was a moderately good measure of vigorous activity, having moderately strong, significant correlations with VO2max, r = 0.41 (p < or = 0.01), but correlated not with metabolic equivalent (METs) values of 6 or more measured with ActiReg. Only total IPAQ walking was fair correlated with METs 1-3 and METs 3-6, respectively r = -0.27 and 0.26 (p < or = 0.05). The index for IPAQ sitting hours per week was moderate correlated with METs values of 1-3 and negatively correlated with METs values of 3-6. Classification of PA in three levels (low, moderate and high) correlated also most strongly with VO2max (0.31 p < or = 0.01) and METs 3-6 and METs 1-3 from ActiReg (r = 0.32 and -0.31, p < or = 0.01). Classification of BMI in three levels (normal, overweight and obese) correlated most strongly negative with VO2max (-0.42 p < or = 0.01) and MJ from ActiReg (r = 0.31 p < or = 0.01).
Our results indicate that IPAQ short version for men has acceptable reliability and criterion validity for vigorous activity and sitting. Walking has moderate reliability. Only the IPAQ for walking had a fair correlation with METs 6+. The questions about moderate activity had fair reproducibility and correlated poorly with most comparison measures.
目前尚无评估身体活动（PA）的标准化方法。因此，研究不同测量方法的有效性和可比性很重要。国际身体活动问卷（IPAQ）已被开发出来作为跨国评估PA的工具，并已在12个国家得到验证。这些工具在监测不同环境中18 - 65岁成年人的PA人群水平方面具有可接受的测量特性。然而，有人担心IPAQ可能高估了PA。本研究的目的是评估IPAQ简版（过去7天）在北特伦德拉格健康研究（HUNT）男性人群中的可靠性和有效性。
对108名年龄在20 - 39岁的男性随机样本进行了两次问卷调查，并通过将结果与最大摄氧量（VO2max）以及ActiReg（一种测量PA和能量消耗（EE）的仪器）进行比较来验证有效性。ActiReg可以区分身体姿势：站立、坐着、向前弯腰和躺着，并且还记录每个姿势或两个姿势中是否有运动。
我们关于IPAQ简版可靠性的结果显示，剧烈活动的可靠性良好，中等强度活动的可靠性一般。组内相关性范围从中等强度活动小时数的低0.30到坐着小时数的高0.80。关于有效性，我们的结果表明，IPAQ总剧烈PA是剧烈活动的中等良好测量指标，与VO2max具有中等强度的显著相关性，r = 0.41（p≤0.01），但与ActiReg测量的6或更高的代谢当量（METs）值不相关。只有IPAQ总步行与METs 1 - 3和METs 3 - 6分别有一般相关性，r = -0.27和0.26（p≤0.05）。IPAQ每周坐着小时数指数与METs 1 - 3值有中等相关性，与METs 3 - 6值呈负相关。将PA分为三个水平（低、中、高）也与VO2max（0.31，p≤0.01）以及ActiReg的METs 3 - 6和METs 1 - 3相关性最强（r = 0.32和 -0.31，p≤0.01）。将体重指数（BMI）分为三个水平（正常、超重和肥胖）与VO2max（-0.42，p≤0.01）和ActiReg的MJ（r = 0.31，p≤0.01）相关性最强且为负相关。
我们的结果表明，男性IPAQ简版在剧烈活动和坐着方面具有可接受的可靠性和标准效度。步行具有中等可靠性。只有IPAQ步行与METs 6+有一般相关性。关于中等强度活动的问题具有一般的可重复性，并且与大多数比较测量指标的相关性较差。
