Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time

Authors: Kristina Larsson, Lena V. Kallings, Örjan Ekblom, Victoria Blom, Eva Andersson, Maria M. Ekblom

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

Sedentary behaviour has been closely linked to metabolic and cardiovascular health and is therefore of importance in disease prevention. A user-friendly tool for assessment of sitting time is thus needed. Previous studies concluded that the present tools used to assess a number of sedentary behaviours are more likely to overestimate sitting than single-item questions which often underestimate sitting time, and that categorical answering options are recommended. In line with this, the single-item question with categorical answering options, SED-GIH, was developed.

The aim of this study was to investigate the criterion validity of the SED-GIH question using activPAL3 micro as the criterion measure. The second aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the SED-GIH questionnaire.

Method

In the validity section of this study, 284 middle-aged adults answered a web questionnaire, which included SED-GIH, wore activPAL and filled in a diary log for one week. Spearman’s rho assessed the relationship between the SED-GIH answers and the daily average sitting time as monitored by the activPAL (activPAL-SIT), a Weighted Kappa assessed the agreement, ANOVA assessed differences in activPAL-SIT between the SED-GIH answer categories, and a Chi² compared the proportions of hazardous sitters between the different SED-GIH answer categories. In the reliability section, 95 elderly participants answered the SED-GIH question twice, with a mean interval of 5.2 days. The reliability was assessed with ICC and a weighted Kappa.

Results

The SED-GIH question correlated moderately with activPAL-SIT (rho = 0.31), with a poor agreement (weighted Kappa 0.12). In total, 40.8% underestimated and 22.2% overestimated their sitting time. The ANOVA showed significant differences in activPAL-SIT between the different SED-GIH answer categories (p < 0.001). The Chi² showed a significant difference in proportion of individuals sitting more than 10 h per day within each SED-GIH answer category. ICC for the test-retest reliability of SED-GIH was excellent with ICC = 0.86, and the weighted Kappa showed an agreement of 0.77.

Conclusions

The unanchored single item SED-GIH question showed excellent reliability but poor validity in the investigated populations. Validity and reliability of SED-GIH is in line with other questionnaires that are commonly used when assessing sitting time.

Biswas A, Oh PI, Faulkner GE, Bajaj RR, Silver MA, Mitchell MS, et al. Sedentary time and its association with risk for disease incidence, mortality, and hospitalization in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:123–32. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-1651.CrossRefPubMed

Healy GN, Wijndaele K, Dunstan DW, Shaw JE, Salmon J, Zimmet PZ, et al. Objectively measured sedentary time, physical activity, and metabolic risk: the Australian diabetes, obesity and lifestyle study (AusDiab). Diabetes Care. 2008;31:369–71. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1795.CrossRefPubMed

Chau JY, Grunseit AC, Chey T, Stamatakis E, Brown WJ, Matthews CE, et al. Daily sitting time and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80000. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pandey A, Salahuddin U, Garg S, Ayers C, Kulinski J, Anand V, et al. Continuous dose-response association between sedentary time and risk for cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1:575–83. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1567.CrossRefPubMed

Koster A, Caserotti P, Patel KV, Matthews CE, Berrigan D, Van Domelen DR, et al. Association of sedentary time with mortality independent of moderate to vigorous physical activity. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037696.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) - terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lyden K, Petruski N, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P. Direct observation is a valid criterion for estimating physical activity and sedentary behavior. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11:860–3. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2012-0290.CrossRefPubMed

Klenk J, Buchele G, Lindemann U, Kaufmann S, Peter R, Laszlo R, et al. Concurrent validity of activPAL and activPAL3 accelerometers in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2016;24:444–50. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2015-0178.CrossRefPubMed

Lowe SA, Olaighin G. Monitoring human health behaviour in one's living environment: a technological review. Med Eng Phys. 2014;36:147–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.11.010.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sellers C, Dall P, Grant M, Stansfield B. Validity and reliability of the activPAL3 for measuring posture and stepping in adults and young people. Gait Posture. 2016;43:42–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.10.020.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Van Nassau F, Chau JY, Lakerveld J, Bauman AE, van der Ploeg HP. Validity and responsiveness of four measures of occupational sitting and standing. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0306-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Atkin AJ, Gorely T, Clemes SA, Yates T, Edwardson C, Brage S, et al. Methods of measurement in epidemiology: sedentary behaviour. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1460–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dys118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Healy GN, Clark BK, Winkler EA, Gardiner PA, Brown WJ, Matthews CE. Measurement of adults' sedentary time in population-based studies. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:216–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Dall PM, Coulter EH, Fitzsimons CF, Skelton DA, Chastin S. TAxonomy of self-reported sedentary behaviour tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e013844. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Olsson SJ, Ekblom O, Andersson E, Borjesson M, Kallings LV. Categorical answer modes provide superior validity to open answers when asking for level of physical activity: a cross-sectional study. Scandinavian J Public Health. 2016;44:70–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815602830.CrossRef

16.

Muijs D. Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London: Sage Publications; 2011.CrossRef

17.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.CrossRef

18.

Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.CrossRef

19.

Chastin SF, Culhane B, Dall PM. Comparison of self-reported measure of sitting time (IPAQ) with objective measurement (activPAL). Physiol Meas. 2014;35:2319–28. https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/35/11/2319.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Clark BK, Winkler E, Healy GN, Gardiner PG, Dunstan DW, Owen N, et al. Adults' past-day recall of sedentary time: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:1198–207. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182837f57.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Clark BK, Pavey TG, Lim RF, Gomersall SR, Brown WJ. Past-day recall of sedentary time: validity of a self-reported measure of sedentary time in a university population. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19:237–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.02.001.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Busschaert C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Holle V, Chastin SF, Cardon G, De Cocker K. Reliability and validity of three questionnaires measuring context-specific sedentary behaviour and associated correlates in adolescents, adults and older adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0277-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time
Authors: Kristina Larsson
Lena V. Kallings
Örjan Ekblom
Victoria Blom
Eva Andersson
Maria M. Ekblom
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6329-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Developing a coordinated Canadian post-secondary surveillance system: a Delphi survey to identify measurement priorities for the Canadian Campus Wellbeing Survey (CCWS)

Incidence and predictors of tuberculosis among HIV-positive adults on antiretroviral therapy at Debre Markos referral hospital, Northwest Ethiopia: a retrospective record review

A web-based lifestyle intervention program for Chinese college students: study protocol and baseline characteristics of a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Child marriage and psychological well-being in Niger and Ethiopia

Cybervictimization among secondary students: social networking time, personality traits and parental education

How does a Social and Behavioral Change Communication Intervention Predict Menstrual Health and Hygiene Management: A Cross-Sectional Study