Next Article in Journal
Relationship between Learning and Psychomotor Skills in Early Childhood Education
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Metallic Off-Flavors in Drinking Water: Health, Consumption, and Sensory Perception
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comprehensive Review on Social Inequalities and Pregnancy Outcome—Identification of Relevant Pathways and Mechanisms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 24
10.3390/ijerph192416834
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires That Assess Barriers and Facilitators of Sedentary Behavior in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review

by
Guilherme Augusto Oliveira
1,
Andressa Costa Marcelino
1,2,
Maíra Tristão Parra
3,
Marcus Vinicius Nascimento-Ferreira
4 and
Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes
5,*
1
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 01246-904, Brazil
2
Undergraduate Course in Nutrition, Ninth of July University, Sao Paulo 01504-001, Brazil
3
Hebert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, CA 92093, USA
4
Health, Physical Activity and Behavior Research (HEALTHY-BRA) Group, Universidade Federal do Tocantins, Palmas 77650-000, Brazil
5
The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Austin Campus, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Science, Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, Austin, TX 78701, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(24), 16834; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416834
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 8 December 2022 / Accepted: 10 December 2022 / Published: 15 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exclusive Papers Collection of Editorial Board Members (and Invited Scholars) in Section Public Health Statistics and Risk Assessment)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We systematically reviewed the literature about the validity and reliability of barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior questionnaires for children and adolescents, considering accelerometers as the reference method. We included studies that assessed the agreement between the barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior through a questionnaire and an objective measure (e.g., accelerometry). We searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS): these databases were searched for records from inception to 5 March 2021, and updated to November 2022. The search strategy used the following descriptors: children and adolescents; barriers or facilitators; questionnaires; accelerometers; and validation or reliability coefficient. Studies identified in the search were selected independently by two reviewers. The inclusion criteria were: (i) population of children and adolescents, (ii) original studies, (iii) subjective and objective measurement methods, (iv) studies that report validity or reliability, and (v) population without specific diseases. Seven studies were eligible for our review. The main exclusion reasons were studies that did not report validity or reliability coefficients (56.6%) and non-original studies (14.5%). The participants’ ages in the primary studies ranged from 2 to 18 years. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was the most reported reliability assessment among the eligible articles, while Pearson and Spearman’s coefficients were prevalent for validity. The reliability of self-report questionnaires for assessing sedentary behavior ranged from r = 0.3 to 1.0. The validity of the accelerometers ranged from r = −0.1 to 0.9. Family environment was the main factor associated with sedentary behavior. Our findings suggest that questionnaires assessing the barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior are weak to moderate. PROSPERO Registration (CRD42021233945).

1. Introduction

Sedentary behavior (SB) is defined as a waking state in which one is sitting or reclining with low energy expenditure (<1.5 METs) [1], for a prolonged time. It has been shown to be one of the main aggravating factors for health issues. Barriers are defined as obstacles that prevent, for the most part, SB, such as the encouragement of physical activity, and limited exposure time to screens. Facilitators are defined as practices that contribute to SB, such as the lack of encouragement to perform outdoor activities, and allowing prolonged screen exposure time [2,3,4].
Sedentary behavior is linked to technological advances through the prolonged exposure to television screens, video games, computers, and smartphones among the young population, and it has significantly increased in recent years. Additionally, sedentary behavior is strongly associated with obesity, increased blood pressure, and cholesterol in the pediatric population [5]. Since the 1980s, obesity has increased in more than 70 countries: more than 107.7 million children were overweight in 2015 [6]. In 2016, the obese pediatric population exceeded 124 million individuals [7]. Besides sedentary behavior being associated with obesity, sedentary behavior is also a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and early mortality in adulthood [4,8,9].
A previous systematic review on this topic identified that the barriers and facilitators of SB are directly associated with demographic, biological, environmental, and psychosocial factors, including prolonged sitting time, especially when exposed to screens and other media. Neighborhood safety, climate, types of transportation (active, such as walking, or passive, such as transportation by cars) are environmental factors, while social support, that is, people’s influence on social life, is a psychosocial factor associated with SB [3].
The literature regarding questionnaires to assess SB in children and adolescents appears to be scarce. Such instruments allow for large-scale use, and they are more accessible compared to other assessment methods, such as accelerometry. Additionally, questionnaires capture not only SB, but also detailed information regarding SB (e.g., such as mode of SB) and physical activity (e.g., physical activity domain), which are not captured through objective accelerometry data [10]. However, the questionnaires available in the literature are not considered reliable and valid. Therefore, a deeper evaluation of these instruments is warranted for reliable results [11,12,13]. The objective of our review was to assess the validity and reliability of questionnaires addressing the perceived barriers and facilitators of SB in children and adolescents aged 2 to 19 years. Moreover, our review intended to identify the main factors associated with SB.

2. Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature about the validity and reliability of questionnaires to assess the barriers and facilitators of perceived SB in children and adolescents. We followed the reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The review protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42021233945), and the PECO (population, exposure, comparator, and outcome) research question structure is described below:
P = children and adolescents
E = barrier & facilitator measured by subjective methods
C = barrier & facilitator measured by objective methods
O = agreement & disagreement reported by statistical methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

Eligible studies were those meeting the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study was a primary research study; (ii) the study population consisted of children (2–10 years) and adolescents (11–19 years), as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) [14]; (iii) the study applied a subjective and objective method to assess SB; (iv) of the study reported the validity or reliability of questionnaires; (v) the study was conducted on healthy populations (free of known diseases). Publications related to the same study were pooled and we considered the publication with the largest sample size and the first publication date.

2.2. Search Strategy

Four electronic databases—MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS—were searched from inception to 5 March 2021. The searches were registered in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA) so that continual updates on new publications would be received until 11 November 2022 as requested by the reviewer. We used the descriptors and MeSH terms described below, where List A refers to studies with children, and List B to studies with adolescents.

2.2.1. List A

(‘early childhood’ OR ‘child’ OR ‘preschool’ OR ‘children’ OR ‘preschoolers’ OR ‘childhood’) AND (‘Sedentary Behaviors’ OR ‘Sedentary Lifestyle’ OR ‘Inactivity Physical’ OR Sedentary Time’ OR ‘Lack of Physical Activity’ OR ‘screen time’ OR ‘television’ OR ‘computers’ OR ‘video games’) AND (‘Barrier’ OR ‘physical barriers’ OR ‘Barrier, Physical’ OR ‘Barriers Physical’ OR ‘limitations’ OR ‘facilitator’) AND (‘questionnaire’ OR ‘self-report OR ‘proxy report’ OR ‘log’) AND (‘accelerometer’ OR ‘accelerometry’ OR ‘direct observation’ OR ‘pedometer’ OR ‘motion sense’ OR ‘heart rate’ OR ‘inclinometer’ OR ‘activity monitor’ OR ‘ActiGraph’ OR ‘GENEActiv’) AND (‘validity of results’ OR ‘validities’ OR ‘valid’ OR ‘validation’ OR ‘validity’ OR ‘agreement’).

2.2.2. List B

(‘adolescence’ OR ‘adolescents’ OR ‘youth’ OR ‘teen’ OR ‘teenager’) AND (‘Sedentary Behaviors’ OR ‘Sedentary Lifestyle’ OR ‘Inactivity Physical’ OR Sedentary Time’, OR ‘Lack of Physical Activity’ OR ‘screen time’, OR ‘television’, OR ‘computers’ OR ‘video games’) AND (‘Barrier’ OR ‘physical barriers’ OR ‘Barrier Physical’ OR ‘Barriers, Physical’ O ‘limitations’ OR ‘facilitator’) AND (‘questionnaire’ OR ‘self-report’ OR ‘proxy report’ OR ‘log’) AND (‘accelerometer’ OR ‘accelerometry’ OR ‘direct observation’ OR ‘pedometer’ OR ‘motion sense’ OR ‘heart rate’ OR ‘inclinometer’ OR ‘activity monitor’ OR ‘ActiGraph’ OR ‘GENEActiv’) AND (‘validity of results’ OR ‘validities’ OR ‘valid’ OR ‘validation’ OR ‘validity’ OR ‘agreement’).

2.3. Data Extraction

We removed duplications, and two reviewers (GO and AM) independently screened the titles and abstracts. In the second phase, the same reviewers independently screened the studies in full text using the eligibility criteria presented in Figure 1. Differences were resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached. An experienced third reviewer (ACFDM) was consulted to resolve inconsistencies.
We extracted data from the included studies using a form that included the characteristics of primary studies (such as authors, evaluated tool, location, year of publication, target population, and questionnaire respondent). The same form also captured the methodological characteristics (sample size, period between test and retest, details about the subjective assessment, description of the objective assessment methods, and the agreement between the subjective and objective methods). We considered more than one validity estimate per study when the effects of the global estimate were not reported. For studies reporting the stratified validity estimation effects, we followed a pre-specified order of priority to assess the inclusion criteria and type of barriers and facilitators. The order was as follows: first, the study population (children, adolescents), followed by a domain of sedentary behavior (e.g., screen time, sedentary time), subjective method (questionnaire, diary), objective method (e.g., accelerometer, direct observation), and type of report (e.g., parental report, self-report).

2.4. Data Synthesis

Concordance is the degree to which scores or rankings are identical [15]. We adopted agreement correlation coefficients between the subjective and objective methods (reference method) evaluated concomitantly with the outcome. We captured the following characteristics related to the independent variables: type of measurement, subjective method, objective method, and type of report. Although all statistically significant outcomes were reported, the heterogeneity among the definitions and measurements across the studies impaired us from pooling the findings. Figure 1 presents the flow diagram of the review, according to the PRISMA statement.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics of Eligible Studies

We identified 511 records of potentially relevant studies. Of these records, seven [16,17,18,19,20,21,22] were eligible studies for our review. The included studies were published after 2005, of which four assessed test-retest reproducibility and reliability, one assessed construct validity, and six assessed test validity. Table 1 provides a description of the included studies.

3.2. Characteristics of Subjective Assessment Methods Recovered

Questionnaires
Self-report was the most used method to assess SB. Likert-type scales and multiple-choice answers were most used, and dichotomous answers were the least common (Supplementary Table S1).
Barriers and facilitators of SB
Questions about the barriers and facilitators of SB are associated with several factors: parental influence on their children’s behavior, individual (disposition of screens at home), and environmental factors (climate, accessibility, safety of the neighborhood in which the individuals live) [17,18,19,22].
Parental influences on their children’s behavior
Two studies [16,17] addressed questions related to parents’ encouragement and motivation for their children to be physically active with outdoor or indoor practices. Questions assessed the time available for parents to be physically active with their children, parental encouragement for children to be physically active, and adequate environment for PA engagement (whether children have a spacious backyard). These aspects can be considered as barriers for SB.
Individual-level barriers
Promoting and encouraging the use of media as a way to monitor/control children’s behavior during meals is understood to be a facilitator of SB [16,17,22]. Other strategies, such as the use of punishment, is understood to be a barrier. Engagement in watching TV (time), and the use of computers and smartphones were the media-related aspects measured by the identified questionnaires.
Perceptions of the environment/neighborhood and the weather
The weather was mentioned as both a facilitator and a barrier by parents. Letting the child/adolescent engage in outdoor activities on hot, humid, and cold days [16,17], and days with pleasant weather was perceived to be a barrier to SB. One study addressed neighborhood safety [16,17]. Aspects related to the perceived environment included the assessment of paths’ conditions, the presence of traffic lights and crosswalks, and accessibility to public parks, green areas, or private clubs. Having a good/excellent perception of the neighborhood was a barrier to SB. Conversely, neighborhoods with high criminal levels were perceived as a facilitator for SB.
Reliability estimates
The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was the most reported statistical method to assess internal consistency [16,19,20,22]. Acceptable values ranged from 0.54 to 0.88. The Kappa coefficient was reported in one study [17,18], with values ranging from 0.39 to 0.97, and it was considered acceptable for the present review [23]. Three studies [17,18,21] did not report agreement methods for internal consistency. For our review, we considered an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equal to or greater than 0.75 as excellent, between 0.60 and 0.74 as good, between 0.40 and 0.59 as fair, and <0.40 as poor [24]. Ridley showed high results. The study [20] presented factors with high values, and [19] with moderate to high agreement values. Additional details are available in Table 2.
Validity estimates
Pearson’s and Spearman’s coefficients were the most used statistical methods for validity estimates [16,17,18,20,21,22]. Three studies presented a weak correlation [16,17,18,20,21], one study presented a moderate correlation [21], and one study did not report a validity estimate [20]. Table 3 demonstrates the characteristics of validity findings. Validity estimates ranged from r = 0.31 to 1.00 for self-reported questionnaires, and from r = −0.1 to 0.97 for accelerometry. Table 3 describes the descriptive characteristics of validity estimates.

4. Discussion

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of studies addressing the reliability and validity of questionnaires on the perceived barriers and facilitators of SB in children and adolescents. We identified that questionnaires assessing barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior to be moderately to strongly reliable and to have moderate to weak validity [16,17,18,19,21,22]. We also identified a lack of studies in the last two decades addressing the psychometric properties of these questionnaires, and therefore the lack of adequate tools to obtain valid and reliable reports.
Several factors influence SB, including family income [16,17], neighborhood safety [16,17], personal motivation [16,17,22], and the number of household appliances [16,19,20]. This study identified the main factors associated with SB [16,17]. In our review, SB is associated with non-school days, probably because the school environment presents opportunities for the beneficial practice of physical activity [25]. Parental education level also appears to be associated with the perception of barriers and facilitators to SB. One study [26] demonstrated that parents with a higher educational level engage more in PA with their children, compared to those with lower levels [26,27].
Questionnaire items about parental rules for a child’s TV-watching were the most reported. One possible explanation is that parents who enforce rules, watching TV with their child and eating meals when the TV is on, were associated with increased screen time. Limiting TV time, causing children to spend more time playing outdoors, was associated with barriers [25]. In this sense, understanding SB in children and adolescents is an essential prevention strategy for public health [26,27], since SB is highly prevalent in the pediatric population and directly associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases, which can lead to death in early adulthood [28,29,30].
We demonstrated that questionnaires are a useful tool for assessing barriers and facilitators. Identified study designs (cross-sectional, cluster-randomized trial) varied very little across studies [16,17,18,19,20,21]. Individual analyses of reliability and validity items were found to be moderate to strong.
Primary studies demonstrated a moderate to high reliability of their questionnaires, and the most studied items related to media exposure. However, parental influence is the most crucial item for SB barriers and facilitators.
Our review identified studies with methodological heterogeneity regarding reliability; more specifically, these differences may be related to the different accelerometer models used, the accelerometer implantation protocol, and body site location. Three studies [16,20,22] used the a GT3X ActiGraph model accelerometer, which is highly reliable [31]. The other three studies [17,18,19,21] used the MTI ActiGraph model which has an acceptable level of reliability [32,33,34]. The results from the different models of accelerometers suggest that the devices evaluate the movement similarly. However, further studies to assess intra- and inter-instrument reliability are needed.
Among the strengths of this study are the search carried out in four databases, which reflects that most of the relevant literature on the topic has been investigated. Additionally, having two independent reviewers assess the studies is another strength. An aspect that can be viewed as a limitation is the fact that all the studies were performed in high-income countries. Although this is not a limitation regarding the conduction of the review, it demonstrates a lack of representation of middle to low-income countries. The heterogeneity of the included studies impeded us from conducting a pooled analysis, although this is a result of the state-of-the-art literature and not a limitation of the review process.
This study illuminated the issues influencing SB by showing that this issue affects both developed and developing countries. Moreover, our review provided valuable information on how parental behavior is directly associated with their children’s lifestyles [35,36]. Future studies on this theme in low- and middle-income countries are warranted, considering that most of these studies were carried out in North America and Europe [36,37], therefore, impeding the generalizability of these findings to other populations. Adequate, reliable, and valid instruments to assess the perceived barriers and facilitators of SB are needed given that the exposure of SB has detrimental effects on the health of children and adolescents [37].

5. Conclusions

Our findings suggest that questionnaires to assess the perceived barriers and facilitators of SB presented a moderate to high reliability and weak to moderate validity. Additionally, the family environment is the main factor associated with SB among children and adolescents.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph192416834/s1, Table S1: Questions about barriers and facilitators of sedentary behavior from the questionnaires evaluated.

Author Contributions

G.A.O., A.C.M. and A.C.F.D.M. were responsible for the study concept and study design. G.A.O. and A.C.M. examined the articles and performed the data screening, the data extraction, and the quality assessment. G.A.O. and A.C.M. drafted the manuscript. M.V.N.-F., M.T.P. and A.C.F.D.M. supervised the study. All authors participated in the writing of the paper, provided comments on the drafts, and approved the final version of the manuscript. Each author agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions, and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Study researchers were supported in the interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript. Guilherme Augusto Oliveira was given an MPH student scholarship from São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (proc. 2021/14187-1). Andressa Costa Marcelino was given a scientific initiation scholarship on undergraduate nutrition student at the School of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. FAPESP (proc. 2021/00450-2). Augusto César F. De Moraes received the Start Fund from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and also was awarded the Young Investigator Grant from FAPESP (proc. 2017/20317–0 and 2019/02617–1).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article can be accessed by reasonable request to the Corresponding author: Augusto César F. De Moraes.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge all of the researchers from the YCARE Research Group for their essential contributions and suggestions for improving this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Atkin, A.J.; Gorely, T.; Clemes, S.A.; Yates, T.; Edwardson, C.; Brage, S.; Salmon, J.; Marshall, S.J.; Biddle, S.J. Methods of Measurement in epidemiology: Sedentary Behaviour. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2012, 41, 1460–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Prioreschi, A.; Brage, S.; Hesketh, K.D.; Hnatiuk, J.; Westgate, K.; Micklesfield, L.K. Describing objectively measured physical activity levels, patterns, and correlates in a cross sectional sample of infants and toddlers from South Africa. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Lee, C.; Rankin, K.N.; Zuo, K.J.; Mackie, A.S. Computer-aided auscultation of murmurs in children: Evaluation of commercially available software. Cardiol. Young 2016, 26, 1359–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Biddle, S.J.; García Bengoechea, E.; Wiesner, G. Sedentary behaviour and adiposity in youth: A systematic review of reviews and analysis of causality. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. de Rezende, L.F.; Rodrigues Lopes, M.; Rey-López, J.P.; Matsudo, V.K.; Luiz Odo, C. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: An overview of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016, 388, 1659–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Hurt, R.T.; Kulisek, C.; Buchanan, L.A.; McClave, S.A. The obesity epidemic: Challenges, health initiatives, and implications for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010, 6, 780–792. [Google Scholar]
  8. Leung, M.M.; Agaronov, A.; Grytsenko, K.; Yeh, M.C. Intervening to Reduce Sedentary Behaviors and Childhood Obesity among School-Age Youth: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials. J. Obes. 2012, 2012, 685430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Tremblay, M.S.; LeBlanc, A.G.; Kho, M.E.; Saunders, T.J.; Larouche, R.; Colley, R.C.; Goldfield, G.; Connor Gorber, S. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. HW, K. Assessment of physical activity among childrenand adolescents: A review and synthesis. Prev. Med. 2000, 31, 54–76. [Google Scholar]
  11. Guerra, P.H.; de Farias Júnior, J.C.; Florindo, A.A. Sedentary behavior in Brazilian children and adolescents: A systematic review. Rev. Saude Publica 2016, 50, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Lubans, D.R.; Hesketh, K.; Cliff, D.P.; Barnett, L.M.; Salmon, J.; Dollman, J.; Morgan, P.J.; Hills, A.P.; Hardy, L.L. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of sedentary behaviour measures used with children and adolescents. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, 781–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. de Onis, M.; Onyango, A.W.; Borghi, E.; Siyam, A.; Nishida, C.; Siekmann, J. Development of a WHO growth reference for school-aged children and adolescents. Bull. World Health Organ. 2007, 85, 660–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kottner, J.; Audige, L.; Brorson, S.; Donner, A.; Gajewski, B.J.; Hróbjartsson, A.; Roberts, C.; Shoukri, M.; Streiner, D.L. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 2011, 48, 661–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Vaughn, A.; Hales, D.; Ward, D.S. Measuring the physical activity practices used by parents of preschool children. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2013, 45, 2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Dwyer, G.M.; Hardy, L.L.; Peat, J.K.; Baur, L.A. The validity and reliability of a home environment preschool-age physical activity questionnaire (Pre-PAQ). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Janz, K.F.; Broffitt, B.; Levy, S.M. Validation evidence for the Netherlands physical activity questionnaire for young children: The Iowa Bone Development Study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2005, 76, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jago, R.; Baranowski, T.; Watson, K.; Bachman, C.; Baranowski, J.C.; Thompson, D.; Hernández, A.E.; Venditti, E.; Blackshear, T.; Moe, E. Development of new physical activity and sedentary behavior change self-efficacy questionnaires using item response modeling. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Norman, Å.; Bohman, B.; Nyberg, G.; Schäfer Elinder, L. Psychometric Properties of a Scale to Assess Parental Self-Efficacy for Influencing Children’s Dietary, Physical Activity, Sedentary, and Screen Time Behaviors in Disadvantaged Areas. Health Educ. Behav. 2018, 45, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ridley, K.; Olds, T.S.; Hill, A. The Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents (MARCA): Development and evaluation. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2006, 3, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Fillon, A.; Pereira, B.; Vanhelst, J.; Baran, J.; Masurier, J.; Guirado, T.; Boirie, Y.; Duclos, M.; Julian, V.; Thivel, D. Development of the Children and Adolescents Physical Activity and Sedentary Questionnaire (CAPAS-Q): Psychometric Validity and Clinical Interpretation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. McHugh, M.L. Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochem. Med. 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cicchetti, D.V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol. Assess. 1994, 6, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hesketh, K.R.; Lakshman, R.; van Sluijs, E.M.F. Barriers and facilitators to young children’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative literature. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 987–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Delfino, L.D.; Tebar, W.R.; Tebar, F.; JM, D.E.S.; Romanzini, M.; Fernandes, R.A.; Christofaro, D.G.D. Association between sedentary behavior, obesity and hypertension in public school teachers. Ind. Health 2020, 58, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ruedl, G.; Niedermeier, M.; Wimmer, L.; Ploner, V.; Pocecco, E.; Cocca, A.; Greier, K. Impact of Parental Education and Physical Activity on the Long-Term Development of the Physical Fitness of Primary School Children: An Observational Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cai, D. Central mechanisms of obesity and related metabolic diseases. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. 2013, 14, 309–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Carson, V.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Gray, C.E.; Poitras, V.J.; Chaput, J.P.; Saunders, T.J.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Okely, A.D.; Connor Gorber, S.; et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: An update. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S240–S265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. O’Neil, M.E.; Fragala-Pinkham, M.A.; Forman, J.L.; Trost, S.G. Measuring reliability and validity of the ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer for children with cerebral palsy: A feasibility study. J. Pediatr. Rehabil. Med. 2014, 7, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Puyau, M.R.; Adolph, A.L.; Vohra, F.A.; Butte, N.F. Validation and calibration of physical activity monitors in children. Obes. Res. 2002, 10, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Treuth, M.S.; Sherwood, N.E.; Baranowski, T.; Butte, N.F.; Jacobs, D.R., Jr.; McClanahan, B.; Gao, S.; Rochon, J.; Zhou, A.; Robinson, T.N.; et al. Physical activity self-report and accelerometry measures from the Girls health Enrichment Multi-site Studies. Prev. Med. 2004, 38, S43–S49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cliff, D.P.; Reilly, J.J.; Okely, A.D. Methodological considerations in using accelerometers to assess habitual physical activity in children aged 0–5 years. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2009, 12, 557–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pruitt, L.A.; Glynn, N.W.; King, A.C.; Guralnik, J.M.; Aiken, E.K.; Miller, G.; Haskell, W.L. Use of accelerometry to measure physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2008, 16, 416–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. De Moraes, A.C.F.; Nascimento-Ferreira, M.V.; Forjaz, C.L.D.M.; Aristizabal, J.C.; Azzaretti, L.; Nascimento Junior, W.V.; Miguel-Berges, M.L.; Skapino, E.; Delgado, C.; Moreno, L.A.; et al. Reliability and validity of a sedentary behavior questionnaire for South American pediatric population: SAYCARE study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020, 20, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. González-Gil, E.M.; Mouratidou, T.; Cardon, G.; Androutsos, O.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Góźdź, M.; Usheva, N.; Birnbaum, J.; Manios, Y.; Moreno, L.A. Reliability of primary caregivers reports on lifestyle behaviours of European pre-school children: The ToyBox-study. Obes. Rev. 2014, 15 (Suppl. S3), 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rey-López, J.P.; Ruiz, J.R.; Ortega, F.B.; Verloigne, M.; Vicente-Rodriguez, G.; Gracia-Marco, L.; Gottrand, F.; Molnar, D.; Widhalm, K.; Zaccaria, M.; et al. Reliability and validity of a screen time-based sedentary behaviour questionnaire for adolescents: The HELENA study. Eur. J. Public Health 2012, 22, 373–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 16834 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram of systematic review process.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of systematic review process.
Ijerph 19 16834 g001
Table
Table 1. Description of the included studies (n = 7).
Table 1. Description of the included studies (n = 7).
Study IDLocationJournal PublishednAge (Years)Females (%)Study Design
Janz et al., 2005 [18]NetherlandsRes Q Exerc Sport2044–755.3Cross-sectional
Ridley et al., 2006 [21]AustraliaInt J Behav Nutr Phys Act14299–1551.1Cross-sectional
Jago et al., 2009 [19]USInt J Behav Nutr Phys Act71411.349.1Cross-sectional
Dwyer et al., 2011 [17]AustraliaInt J Behav Nutr Phys Act1054–5.948.0Cross-sectional
Vaughn et al., 2013 [16]USMed Sci Sports Exerc3242–5NACross-sectional
Norman et al., 2018 [20]Stockholm CountyHealth Educ Behav2295.8–7.151.5Cluster-randomized trial
Fillon et al., 2022 [22]FranceInt J Environ Res Public Health1038–1852.5Cross-sectional
Table
Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of the reliability estimates.
Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of the reliability estimates.
Study ID Sample
Size		Length of Reliability TestSubjective ToolNumber of Questions
in the Questionnaire		Internal Consistency
(Test)		Test ResultsTest-Retest ReliabilityReliability Findings
Janz et al., 2005 [18]72NR(NAPQ)
Questionnaire		1NANA(1) Coefficient kappas (κ)
(2) Spearman correlation (rho)		(1) κ = 0.39
(2) rho = 0.30 to 0.66
Ridley et al., 2006 [21]32two times in
the same day		(MARCA)
Questionnaire		1NANA(1) ICC(1) ICC = 0.88 to 0.94
Jago et al., 2009 [19]555NR(PASE)
Questionnaire		24(1) Cronbach’s alpha (α) (1) (α) = 0.84(1) Cronbach’s alpha/
Person-separation reliability		(1) full scale 0.75–0.90
Dwyer et al., 2011 [17]103two weeks
apart		(Pre-PAQ)
Questionnaire		7NANA(1) ICC
(2) Coefficient kappas (κ) 		(1) ranged from 0.31–1.00 (ICC (2, 1))
(2) κ = 0.60–0.97
Vaughn et al., 2013 [16]303NRNR7(1) Cronbach’s alpha (α)(1) (α) = 0.54–0.88NANA
Norman et al., 2018 [20]229NR(EPAQ)
Questionnaire		2(1) Cronbach’s alpha (α)(1) α = 0.87(1) Cronbach’s alpha (α)Factor 1 (α = 0.81)
Factors 2 (α = 0.79)
Factors 3 (α = 0.77)
Fillon et al., 2022 [22]1037 days(CAPAS-Q)
Questionnaire		31(1) Cronbach’s alpha (α)(1) α = 0.71 and 0.68(1) Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (1) 0.193 ep = 0.076
Note: Not reported: NR. Not applicable: NA. Questionnaire: Preschool-age Children’s Physical Activity Questionnaire (Pre-PAQ), Eating and Physical Activity Questionnaire (EPAQ), Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PASE), Netherlands Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ), Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents (MARCA), Physical and Sedentary Activity Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (CAPAS-Q), Factor 2 * = Limit your child to watching TV, DVDs, or playing on the computer, smartphone or tablet for 2 h a day at the most? In bold are the most significant results.
Table
Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of the validity estimates and psychometric properties of the questionnaires.
Table 3. Descriptive characteristics of the validity estimates and psychometric properties of the questionnaires.
Study IDSample SizeLength of Validity TestObjective AssessmentUnits of
Measurement		Validity Estimate Validity Findings
Janz et al., 2005 [18]2044 daysaccelerometermin/daySpearman correlation 0.16
Ridley et al., 2006 [21]661 dayaccelerometermin/daySpearman correlation0.36 to 0.45
Jago et al., 2009 [19]835 daysaccelerometermin/dayICC(r = 0.17–0.33)
Dwyer et al., 2011 [17]674 daysaccelerometermin/dayPearson correlation0.19–0.28
Vaughn et al., 2013 [16]3034 daysaccelerometermin/dayPearson correlation−0.1 to 0.08
Norman et al., 2018 [20]NR7 daysaccelerometermin/dayPearson correlationNA
Fillon et al., 2022 [22]1037 daysaccelerometermin/dayPearson correlation and Spearman correlationNR
Note: NR: Not reported. NA: Not applicable. In bold are the most significant results.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oliveira, G.A.; Marcelino, A.C.; Tristão Parra, M.; Nascimento-Ferreira, M.V.; De Moraes, A.C.F. Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires That Assess Barriers and Facilitators of Sedentary Behavior in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416834

AMA Style

Oliveira GA, Marcelino AC, Tristão Parra M, Nascimento-Ferreira MV, De Moraes ACF. Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires That Assess Barriers and Facilitators of Sedentary Behavior in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416834

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oliveira, Guilherme Augusto, Andressa Costa Marcelino, Maíra Tristão Parra, Marcus Vinicius Nascimento-Ferreira, and Augusto César Ferreira De Moraes. 2022. "Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires That Assess Barriers and Facilitators of Sedentary Behavior in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416834

APA Style

Oliveira, G. A., Marcelino, A. C., Tristão Parra, M., Nascimento-Ferreira, M. V., & De Moraes, A. C. F. (2022). Validity and Reliability of Questionnaires That Assess Barriers and Facilitators of Sedentary Behavior in the Pediatric Population: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(24), 16834. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416834

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop