Determining known-group validity and test-retest reliability in the PEQ (personalized exercise questionnaire)

Isabel B Rodrigues, Jonathan D Adachi, Karen A Beattie, Arthur Lau, Joy C MacDermid, Isabel B Rodrigues, Jonathan D Adachi, Karen A Beattie, Arthur Lau, Joy C MacDermid

Abstract

Background: To determine the known-group validity, a type of construct validity, and the test-retest reliability of a newly developed tool, the Personalized Exercise Questionnaire (PEQ), that assesses the barriers, facilitators, and preferences to exercise in individuals with low bone mass and osteoporosis.

Methods: A comparative design was used to assess known-group validity and a test-retest design to examine the reproducibility. Ninety-five participants with low bone mass and osteoporosis were recruited from an outpatient clinic in Hamilton, Ontario. The questionnaire was administered to 95 participants at baseline and a subset of 42 participants completed the survey again one week later. The known-group validity of the PEQ was determined using four hypotheses that compared two known groups based on employment level, age, socioeconomic status, and physical activity level. The reproducibility of individual responses was analyzed using the Kappa Coefficient (κ).

Results: There was known-group validity for three of the four hypotheses. Test-retest reliability scores ranged from no agreement to almost perfect agreement; seven items had almost perfect agreement (κ: 0.81-1.00), 12 substantial agreement (κ: 0.68-0.74), six moderate agreement (κ: 0.56-0.60), two fair agreement (κ: 0.36-0.40), one slight agreement (κ = 0.23) and one no agreement (κ = - 0.03).

Conclusion: Preliminary support for the usefulness of the PEQ is indicated since the majority of the items had at least substantial agreement and known-group validity was moderately supported for some items.

Trial registration: This study was retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03125590, on April 24, 2017.

Keywords: Barriers; Exercise adherence; Facilitators; PEQ; Preferences; Reliability; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interest or conflict of interest.

References

    1. Schutzer KA, Graves BS. Barriers and motivations to exercise in older adults. Prev Med (Baltim) 2004;39(5):1056–1061. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.003.
    1. Rodrigues I. B., Armstrong J. J., Adachi J. D., MacDermid J. C. Facilitators and barriers to exercise adherence in patients with osteopenia and osteoporosis: a systematic review. Osteoporosis International. 2016;28(3):735–745. doi: 10.1007/s00198-016-3793-2.
    1. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of Physical Activity by Self-Report: Status ,. 2000;71(2):1–14.
    1. Wanner M, Probst-hensch N, Kriemler S, Meier F, Bauman A, Martin BW. What physical activity surveillance needs: validity of a single-item questionnaire. 2014;1570–6.
    1. Zehnacker CH, Bemis-dougherty A. Effect of weighted exercises on bone mineral density in post menopausal women a systematic review. 30:79–88.
    1. Hamilton C. J., Swan V. J. D., Jamal S. A. The effects of exercise and physical activity participation on bone mass and geometry in postmenopausal women: a systematic review of pQCT studies. Osteoporosis International. 2009;21(1):11–23. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-0967-1.
    1. Kam D De, Smulders E, Weerdesteyn V. Exercise interventions to reduce fall-related fractures and their risk factors in individuals with low bone density: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. 2009;2111–25.
    1. Nikander R, Sievänen H, Heinonen A, Daly RM, Uusi-rasi K, Kannus P. Targeted exercise against osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis for optimising bone strength throughout life. 2010;
    1. Vigeh V, Rodrigues I, Macdermid JC. Exercise to improve activities of daily living in persons with osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int. 2017;In press.
    1. Rodrigues IB, Adachi JD, Beattie KA, Macdermid JC. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators , barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):540. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1914-5.
    1. Netemeye RG, Bearden WO, Subhash S. Scaling procedures; issues and applications. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc; 2003.
    1. Cousins SO. Social support for exercise among elderly women in Canada. Health Promot Int. 1995;10(4):273–282. doi: 10.1093/heapro/10.4.273.
    1. Walter SD, Eliasziw M, Donner A. SAMPLE SIZE AND OPTIMAL DESIGNS FOR RELIABILITY STUDIES 1998;17(December 1996):101–10.
    1. McConnell Sara, Kolopack Pamela, Davis Aileen M. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis & Rheumatism. 2001;45(5):453–461. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200110)45:5<453::AID-ART365>;2-W.
    1. Bauman Adrian E, Reis Rodrigo S, Sallis James F, Wells Jonathan C, Loos Ruth JF, Martin Brian W. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? The Lancet. 2012;380(9838):258–271. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1.
    1. Dorough AE, Anderson ES, Ed D. Masters Defense. 2005;(December).
    1. Beauchamp MR, Carron AV, McCutcheon S, Harper O. Older adults’ preferences for exercising alone versus in groups: considering contextual congruence. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(2):200–206. doi: 10.1007/BF02879901.
    1. Activity P. Focus group report: physical activity and women 55–70. 2007.
    1. Segueira S. Prevalence of barriers for physical acitiy in adults according to gener and SES. Br J Sports Med [Internet] 2011;45:5–6.
    1. Heesch KC, Mâsse LC. Lack of Time for Physical Activity: Perception or Reality for African American and Hispanic Women ? 39(3):45–62.
    1. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica [Internet. 2012:276–82 Available from: .
    1. Wojtek J, Chodzko-Zajko J, Proctor DN, Singh MAF, Minson CT, Nigg CR, et al. Exercise and physical Activity for older adults. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2009:1510–30.
    1. Tremblay MS, Warburton DER, Janssen I, Paterson DH, Latimer AE, Rhodes RE, et al. New Canadian physical Activity guidelines. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36:36–46. doi: 10.1139/H11-009.
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada. How healthy are Canadians? A trend analysis of the health of Canadians from a healthy living and chronic disease perspective. Annual report Stress and well-being Health. 2001;2016.
    1. Dishman R. Advances in exercise adherence. Kinetics, Human: Champaign; 1994. p. 49.
    1. Burke SM, Carron AV, Eys MA, Ntoumanis N, Estabrooks PA. Group versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical Activity. Sport Exerc Psychol Rev. 2006;2:1):1–1)39.
    1. Carron A, Hausenblas H, Mack D. Social influence and exercise: A meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc … [Internet]. 1996;18(1):1–16. Available from:
    1. Jenum A, Lorentzen C, Ommundsen Y. Targeting physical activity in a low socioeconomic status population: observations from the Norwegian “Romsas in motion” study. Br J Sport Med. 2009;43(1):64–69. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.053637.
    1. TROST STEWART G., OWEN NEVILLE, BAUMAN ADRIAN E., SALLIS JAMES F., BROWN WENDY. Correlates of adults??? participation in physical activity: review and update. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2002;34(12):1996–2001. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200212000-00020.
    1. Gidlow C, Johnston LH, Crone D. A systematic review of the relationship between socio-economic position and physical activity. 2006;65(4).
    1. Beenackers M, Kamphui SC, Giskes K, Brug J, Kunst A, Burdorf A, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in occupational, leisure-time, and transport related physical activity among European adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;19:116. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-116.
    1. Stalsberg R, Pedersen A. Effects of socioeconomic status on the physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review of the evidence. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2010;20(3):368–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01047.x.
    1. Halpenny E. Pro-environment intentions: examining the affect of place attachment, environmental attitudes, place satisfaction and attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviour. 1998;
    1. O’Brien MW, Shields CA, Oh PI, Fowles JR. Health care provider confidence and exercise prescription practices of exercise is medicine Canada workshop attendees. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab [Internet] 2016;390(December 2016):1–7. Available from:
    1. Cicchetti DV. Feinstien a R. high agreement but low kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43(6):551–585. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(90)90159-M.
    1. Rodrigues I, Missiuna C, Macdermid J. A Theoretical Perspective on Exercise Adherence and Osteoporosis Using the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Social Cognitive Theory. 2016;28:37–49.
    1. Wocken KM, Hall W, Se HS. Exercise adherence in older Adults University of Minnesota twin cities faculty advisor: Dr . Kristine Talley 2013;
    1. Ecclestone NA, Myers AM, Paterson DH. Tracking older participants of twelve physical Activity classes over a three-year period. J Aging Phys Act. 1998;6(1):70–82. doi: 10.1123/japa.6.1.70.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner