» Articles » PMID: 33799839

Agreement Between the SHAPES Questionnaire and a Multiple-Sensor Monitor in Assessing Physical Activity of Adolescents Using Categorial Approach: A Cross-Sectional Study

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2021 Apr 3
PMID 33799839
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the agreement between a 7-day recall questionnaire and multiple-sensor monitor in identifying sufficiently active adolescents. A total of 282 students involved in the CRO-PALS study were randomly selected for a device-based measurement of physical activity (PA) using the SenseWear Armband device (SWA) no more than three weeks before or after having fulfilled the SHAPES questionnaire. Valid data was obtained from 150 participants (61 boys; 89 girls) and included in the analysis. In boys, SHAPES exhibited high specificity (92.3%), overall percent agreement (85.0%), and significant agreement (κ = 0.32, = 0.014) with the SWA in recognising sufficiently active individuals. Conversely, no agreement was detected for quartiles of PA, although boys that were classified in the first and in the fourth quartile by SHAPES differed in device-based measured duration of MVPA (134 [95%CI: 109-160] vs. 87 [95%CI: 65-108], = 0.032); and VPA (39 [95%CI: 23-56] vs. 14 [95%CI: 6-22], = 0.011). In girls, no significant agreement between the two methods was found in any of the analyses. It appears that the SHAPES questionnaire is effective to identify individuals that comply with PA recommendations and to distinguish between the most active and the least active individuals for adolescent boys, but not for girls.

Citing Articles

Criterion validity of the Saltin-Grimby Physical Activity Level Scale in adolescents. The Fit Futures Study.

Beldo S, Aars N, Christoffersen T, Furberg A, Halvorsen P, Hansen B PLoS One. 2022; 17(9):e0273480.

PMID: 36048815 PMC: 9436064. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273480.


Do Fitter Children Better Assess Their Physical Activity with Questionnaire Than Less Fit Children?.

Premelc J, Meh K, Vaha-Ypya H, Sember V, Jurak G Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(3).

PMID: 35162327 PMC: 8835444. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031304.

References
1.
Sallis J, Saelens B . Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2015; 71 Suppl 2:1-14. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2000.11082780. View

2.
Lopez G, Brond J, Andersen L, Dencker M, Arvidsson D . Validation of SenseWear Armband in children, adolescents, and adults. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017; 28(2):487-495. DOI: 10.1111/sms.12920. View

3.
Janssen I, LeBlanc A . Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010; 7:40. PMC: 2885312. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40. View

4.
Troiano R, Berrigan D, Dodd K, Masse L, Tilert T, McDowell M . Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 40(1):181-8. DOI: 10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3. View

5.
Ekelund U, Tomkinson G, Armstrong N . What proportion of youth are physically active? Measurement issues, levels and recent time trends. Br J Sports Med. 2011; 45(11):859-65. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090190. View