Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA)

Mai J M Chinapaw, Sander M Slootmaker, A.J. Schuit, Mariska van Zuidam, Willem van Mechelen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

Background:

Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth.

Methods:

In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA.

Results:

In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower.

Conclusion:

Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities.

Original languageEnglish
Article number58
JournalBMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Aug 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Exercise
Surveys and Questionnaires
Self Report

Keywords

  • Adolescent
  • Adolescent Behavior
  • Adult
  • Age Factors
  • Data Collection
  • Exercise
  • Exercise Test
  • Health Behavior
  • Humans
  • Mental Recall
  • Motor Activity
  • Physical Fitness
  • Psychometrics
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Time
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Validation Studies

Cite this

Chinapaw, Mai J M ; Slootmaker, Sander M ; Schuit, A.J. ; van Zuidam, Mariska ; van Mechelen, Willem. / Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). In: BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2009 ; Vol. 9.
@article{61d15f5058d045439b33b93a3d748eb3,
title = "Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA)",
abstract = "Background: Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth.Methods: In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA.Results: In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower.Conclusion: Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities.",
keywords = "Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Adult, Age Factors, Data Collection, Exercise, Exercise Test, Health Behavior, Humans, Mental Recall, Motor Activity, Physical Fitness, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Validation Studies",
author = "Chinapaw, {Mai J M} and Slootmaker, {Sander M} and A.J. Schuit and {van Zuidam}, Mariska and {van Mechelen}, Willem",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1186/1471-2288-9-58",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",
issn = "1471-2288",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). / Chinapaw, Mai J M; Slootmaker, Sander M; Schuit, A.J.; van Zuidam, Mariska; van Mechelen, Willem.

In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 9, 58, 10.08.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA)

AU - Chinapaw, Mai J M

AU - Slootmaker, Sander M

AU - Schuit, A.J.

AU - van Zuidam, Mariska

AU - van Mechelen, Willem

PY - 2009/8/10

Y1 - 2009/8/10

N2 - Background: Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth.Methods: In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA.Results: In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower.Conclusion: Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities.

AB - Background: Accurate measures of physical activity are highly needed. We evaluated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the self-report Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). The AQuAA is a commonly used questionnaire in Dutch youth.Methods: In the test-retest reliability study, 53 adolescents and 58 adults completed the AQuAA twice, with an interval of two weeks. In the validity study, 33 adolescents and 47 adults wore an accelerometer (Actigraph) during two weeks, and subsequently completed the AQuAA.Results: In adolescents the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate (intraclass correlations (ICCs) ranging from 0.30 to 0.59). In adults the test-retest reliability was fair to moderate for the time spent on sedentary, light and moderate intensity activities (ICCs ranging from 0.49 to 0.60), but poor for time spent on vigorous activities (ICC = -0.005). The correlations between the AQuAA and Actigraph were low and nonsignificant. Compared with the Actigraph, time spent on all physical activities was significantly higher according to the questionnaire (except for light intensity activities in adolescents), while time spent on sedentary behaviours was significantly lower.Conclusion: Reliability of the AQuAA is fair to moderate. The validity of the AQuAA compared to an accelerometer is poor. Both adolescents and adults underestimate the time spent on sedentary behaviours and overestimate the time spent on physical activities.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adolescent Behavior

KW - Adult

KW - Age Factors

KW - Data Collection

KW - Exercise

KW - Exercise Test

KW - Health Behavior

KW - Humans

KW - Mental Recall

KW - Motor Activity

KW - Physical Fitness

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Surveys and Questionnaires

KW - Time

KW - Journal Article

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

KW - Validation Studies

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-9-58

DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-9-58

M3 - Article

VL - 9

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

SN - 1471-2288

M1 - 58

ER -