BMC Medical Research Methodology
RMA DelaysOur Admin Portal website is currently experiencing technical difficulties, and it could result in delays with RMAs being processed. We are currently working to resolve these issues. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Join us on August 11th for an ActiGraph webinar hosted by Xtalks:
Oncology Research and Care: Reimagining Digital InnovationRegister Now
Psychometric Properties of Two Physical Activity Questionnaires, the AQuAA and the PASE, in Cancer Patients
- Added on March 16, 2011
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of two self-report physical activity (PA) questionnaires – the AQuAA (Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents) and PASE (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) – in cancer patients.
Methods Test-retest reliability was determined by administering the questionnaires twice within 5 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated.
Construct validity was determined by comparing the questionnaire results with ActiGraph accelerometer scores using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) and ICCs. Content validity was examined using the Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI).
Results Reliability for the AQuAA scores were fair to excellent (ICC = 0.57 to 0.78).
Reliability for the PASE scores ranged from good to excellent (ICC = 0.67 to 0.90). Correlations between the ActiGraph and the AQuAA and the PASE were low (rs 0.05 and 0.16 respectively, and ICC = -0.001 to 0.44).
The TSTI showed that participants experienced difficulties with the examples provided with the questions, the perceptions of intensity level of PA, and with recalling the time spent on PA.
Conclusions Both questionnaires showed good to excellent test-retest reliability for most scores. Construct validity of both questionnaires was low, as indicated by the low correlations with the ActiGraph.
Except for a few difficulties that participants perceived when filling out the questionnaires, the content validity of both questionnaires was good.