Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

An evaluation of the EASY instrument in a cross-sectional study

Authors: Julie Agel, Umesh Ghimire, Nicholas M. Edwards, Bradley Nelson, Todd Rockwood

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the impact of modifying the published scoring system to address identified potential weaknesses in the published scoring system for the Evaluation of Activity Surveys in Youth (EASY). A secondary purpose was to evaluate the EASY on children in Grades 1–5. The EASY is a self-report physical activity instrument for youth.

Methods

Original EASY survey results were collected at one time point from an online panel from participants across the United States as part of a larger cross-sectional University of Minnesota project looking at children’s specific activity and sports participation between June and August 2019. Data was evaluated using three common scoring methods: simple summation, mean, and transformed summation. Data was compared by Grades 1–5 and 6–8.

Results

The summary statistics of the scores show that there is no statistically significant difference across the scoring methods by population. A paired t-test evaluation of the different scoring methods shows that while the scores are very similar within methodology (simple summation, mean, transformed sum) they are all statistically significantly different from one another, which demonstrates that for any given individual the specific scoring methodology used can result in meaningful differences. The transformed sum provided the strongest methodologic result. Analysis also concluded that administering the scale by proxy to children from grades 1–5 resulted in similar responses to those in Grades 6–8 broadening the appropriate populations able to use this scale.

Conclusion

The transformed sum is the preferred scoring method.

Trial registration

Not applicable.
Literature
3.
go back to reference Saxena S, Van Ommeren M, Tang KC, Armstrong TP. Mental health benefits of physical activity. J Mental Health. 2005;14(15):445–51.CrossRef Saxena S, Van Ommeren M, Tang KC, Armstrong TP. Mental health benefits of physical activity. J Mental Health. 2005;14(15):445–51.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. (2nd ed). Washington, DC; 2018. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. (2nd ed). Washington, DC; 2018.
8.
go back to reference Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71(2 Suppl):1–14.CrossRefPubMed Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71(2 Suppl):1–14.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Adegoke O, Rogers RG, McDermott E, Davila GW, et al. The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development. Int Urogynecol. 2013;24(7):1105–22.CrossRef Rockwood TH, Constantine ML, Adegoke O, Rogers RG, McDermott E, Davila GW, et al. The PISQ-IR: considerations in scale scoring and development. Int Urogynecol. 2013;24(7):1105–22.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An evaluation of the EASY instrument in a cross-sectional study
Authors
Julie Agel
Umesh Ghimire
Nicholas M. Edwards
Bradley Nelson
Todd Rockwood
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02158-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2024 Go to the issue