Is questionnaire-based sitting time inaccurate and can it be improved? A cross-sectional investigation using accelerometer-based sitting time.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the differences between a questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time, and develop a model for improving the accuracy of questionnaire-based sitting time for predicting accelerometer-based sitting time.

METHODS

183 workers in a cross-sectional study reported sitting time per day using a single question during the measurement period, and wore 2 Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometers on the thigh and trunk for 1-4 working days to determine their actual sitting time per day using the validated Acti4 software. Least squares regression models were fitted with questionnaire-based siting time and other self-reported predictors to predict accelerometer-based sitting time.

RESULTS

Questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based average sitting times were ≈272 and ≈476 min/day, respectively. A low Pearson correlation (r=0.32), high mean bias (204.1 min) and wide limits of agreement (549.8 to -139.7 min) between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time were found. The prediction model based on questionnaire-based sitting explained 10% of the variance in accelerometer-based sitting time. Inclusion of 9 self-reported predictors in the model increased the explained variance to 41%, with 10% optimism using a resampling bootstrap validation. Based on a split validation analysis, the developed prediction model on ≈75% of the workers (n=132) reduced the mean and the SD of the difference between questionnaire-based and accelerometer-based sitting time by 64% and 42%, respectively, in the remaining 25% of the workers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that questionnaire-based sitting time has low validity and that a prediction model can be one solution to materially improve the precision of questionnaire-based sitting time.