Institute of Sport Science, University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
School of Therapeutic Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sports Med. 2020 Jul;50(7):1271-1315. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01268-x.
Questionnaires provide valuable information about physical activity (PA) behaviors in older adults. Until now, no firm recommendations for the most qualified questionnaires for older adults have been provided.
This review is an update of a previous systematic review, published in 2010, and aims to summarize, appraise and compare the measurement properties of all available self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in older adults.
We included the articles evaluated in the previous review and conducted a new search in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus from September 2008 to December 2019, using the following inclusion criteria (1) the purpose of the study was to evaluate at least one measurement property (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (2) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (3) the questionnaire covered at least one domain of PA; (4) the study was performed in the general, healthy population of older adults; (5) the mean age of the study population was > 55 years; and (6) the article was published in English. Based on the Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires (QAPAQ) checklist, we evaluated the quality and results of the studies. The content validity of all included questionnaires was also evaluated using the reviewers' rating. The quality of the body of evidence was evaluated for the overall construct of each questionnaire (e.g., total PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and walking using a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
In total, 56 articles on 40 different questionnaires (14 from the previous review and 26 from the update) were included. Reliability was assessed for 22, measurement error for four and hypotheses testing for construct validity for 38 different questionnaires. Evidence for responsiveness was available for one questionnaire. For many questionnaires, only one measurement property was assessed in only a single study. Sufficient content validity was considered for 22 questionnaires. All questionnaires displayed large measurement errors. Only versions of two questionnaires showed both sufficient reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity, namely the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; English version, Turkish version) for the assessment of total PA, and the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q; English version) for the assessment of MVPA. The quality of evidence for these results ranged from very low to high.
Until more high-quality evidence is available, we recommend the PASE for measuring total PA and the PASB-Q for measuring MVPA in older adults. However, they are not equally qualified among different languages. Future studies on the most promising questionnaires should cover all relevant measurement properties. We recommend using and improving existing PA questionnaires-instead of developing new ones-and considering the strengths and weaknesses of each PA measurement instrument for a particular purpose.
问卷为评估老年人的身体活动(PA)行为提供了有价值的信息。到目前为止,还没有针对最适合老年人的问卷提出明确的建议。
本综述是对 2010 年发表的一项系统综述的更新,旨在总结、评估和比较所有可用的自我管理问卷,以评估老年人的 PA。
我们纳入了之前综述中评估的文章,并于 2008 年 9 月至 2019 年 12 月在 PubMed、Embase 和 SPORTDiscus 中进行了新的检索,使用以下纳入标准:(1)研究目的是评估自我管理问卷的至少一个测量特性(信度、测量误差、结构效度假设检验、反应性);(2)问卷旨在测量 PA;(3)问卷涵盖 PA 的至少一个领域;(4)研究在一般健康的老年人人群中进行;(5)研究人群的平均年龄>55 岁;(6)文章以英文发表。根据体育活动问卷质量评估(QAPAQ)检查表,我们评估了研究的质量和结果。还使用评审员的评分评估了所有纳入问卷的内容效度。使用改良的推荐评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法,对每个问卷(例如,总 PA、中等到剧烈体力活动[MVPA]和步行)的整体结构评估了证据质量。
共纳入 56 篇文章的 40 种不同问卷(14 篇来自之前的综述,26 篇来自更新)。评估了 22 个问卷的信度,4 个问卷的测量误差,38 个问卷的结构效度假设检验。一个问卷有反应性的证据。对于许多问卷,只有一个测量特性在单个研究中进行了评估。22 个问卷被认为具有足够的内容效度。所有问卷的测量误差都很大。只有两个问卷的版本表现出足够的信度和结构效度假设检验,即用于评估总 PA 的老年人体力活动量表(PASE;英语版、土耳其版)和用于评估 MVPA 的体力活动和久坐行为问卷(PASB-Q;英语版)。这些结果的证据质量从极低到高不等。
在有更多高质量证据之前,我们建议使用 PASE 测量老年人的总 PA,使用 PASB-Q 测量 MVPA。然而,它们在不同语言中的适用性并不相同。未来关于最有前途问卷的研究应涵盖所有相关的测量特性。我们建议使用和改进现有的 PA 问卷,而不是开发新的问卷,并考虑每种 PA 测量仪器在特定目的下的优缺点。