Institute of Movement Therapy and movement-oriented Prevention and Rehabilitation, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
Working group physical activity-related prevention research, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf 6, 50933, Cologne, Germany.
BMC Public Health. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-8312-x.
The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) is applied internationally as a tool to assess the level of physical activity. The GPAQ was designed as an interview, including the use of show cards, which visualise activities of moderate and intensive physical activity and support the distinction between these intensities. The self-administered version of the GPAQ is used in the application-oriented research for reasons of economy and practicality. However, the use of show cards often remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to examine differences in validity between two self-administered versions of the GPAQ with and without show cards.
In this crossover study, two groups (n = 54; 57.4% female; 28.3 ± 12.2 years) received the GPAQ with or without show cards after 7 days and the respective other version after additional 7 days. For validation, all participants wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X+) on all 14 days. Differences between GPAQ versions and accelerometer data were compared by Wilcoxon signed rank test. Additionally, Spearman analyses and Bland-Altman plots were calculated.
No statistically significant difference between the GPAQ versions could be found in regard to the accuracy of physical activity assessment (p > 0.05). Both GPAQ versions show similar correlation coefficients for vigorous physical activity (rho = 0.31-0.42) and sedentary behaviour (rho = 0.29-0.32). No statistically significant correlation was found for physical activity of moderate intensity. The Bland-Altman plots support these results, as both GPAQ versions have the same trends in terms of overestimation and underestimation of physical activity.
The use of show cards had no significant impact on questionnaire validity. Therefore, both GPAQ versions can be applied interchangeably. Nevertheless the exact description of application of the GPAQ is desirable in terms of reproducibility and transparent scientific research.
全球体力活动问卷（GPAQ）作为一种评估体力活动水平的工具，在国际上得到广泛应用。GPAQ 设计为一种访谈式问卷，包括使用展示卡片，这些卡片直观地展示了中等和剧烈强度的体力活动，并支持对这两种强度的区分。出于经济和实用性考虑，在面向应用的研究中通常使用自我管理版本的 GPAQ。然而，展示卡片的使用往往不为人知。本研究旨在比较有和无展示卡片的两种自我管理 GPAQ 版本的有效性差异。
在这项交叉研究中，两组参与者（n=54；女性占 57.4%；28.3±12.2 岁）在 7 天后分别接受了有和无展示卡片的 GPAQ 问卷，在另外 7 天后分别接受了各自的另一种版本。为了验证，所有参与者在 14 天内均佩戴加速度计（ActiGraph GT3X+）。通过 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验比较 GPAQ 版本与加速度计数据之间的差异。此外，还计算了 Spearman 分析和 Bland-Altman 图。
在体力活动评估的准确性方面，两种 GPAQ 版本之间没有统计学上的显著差异（p>0.05）。两种 GPAQ 版本对剧烈体力活动（rho=0.31-0.42）和久坐行为（rho=0.29-0.32）的相关性系数相似。中等强度体力活动的相关性无统计学意义。Bland-Altman 图支持这些结果，因为两种 GPAQ 版本在体力活动的高估和低估方面具有相同的趋势。
使用展示卡片对问卷的有效性没有显著影响。因此，两种 GPAQ 版本可以互换使用。然而，为了可重复性和透明的科学研究，确切描述 GPAQ 的应用是可取的。
