However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good. Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34 2-to-9-items R = 0.35 ≥10-items R = 0.37). The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient range − 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries ( R = 0.63 ) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires ( R = 0.35 ). There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools.
The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e.
0 kommentar(er)
