Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Publications (1 of 1) Show all publications
Larsson, K., Kallings, L., Ekblom, Ö., Blom, V., Andersson, E. & Ekblom, M. (2019). Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time.. BMC Public Health, 19(1), Article ID 19:17.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Criterion validity and test-retest reliability of SED-GIH, a single item question for assessment of daily sitting time.
Show others...
2019 (English)In: BMC Public Health, ISSN 1471-2458, E-ISSN 1471-2458, Vol. 19, no 1, article id 19:17Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behaviour has been closely linked to metabolic and cardiovascular health and is therefore of importance in disease prevention. A user-friendly tool for assessment of sitting time is thus needed. Previous studies concluded that the present tools used to assess a number of sedentary behaviours are more likely to overestimate sitting than single-item questions which often underestimate sitting time, and that categorical answering options are recommended. In line with this, the single-item question with categorical answering options, SED-GIH, was developed. The aim of this study was to investigate the criterion validity of the SED-GIH question using activPAL3 micro as the criterion measure. The second aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the SED-GIH questionnaire.

METHOD: In the validity section of this study, 284 middle-aged adults answered a web questionnaire, which included SED-GIH, wore activPAL and filled in a diary log for one week. Spearman's rho assessed the relationship between the SED-GIH answers and the daily average sitting time as monitored by the activPAL (activPAL-SIT), a Weighted Kappa assessed the agreement, ANOVA assessed differences in activPAL-SIT between the SED-GIH answer categories, and a Chi2 compared the proportions of hazardous sitters between the different SED-GIH answer categories. In the reliability section, 95 elderly participants answered the SED-GIH question twice, with a mean interval of 5.2 days. The reliability was assessed with ICC and a weighted Kappa.

RESULTS: The SED-GIH question correlated moderately with activPAL-SIT (rho = 0.31), with a poor agreement (weighted Kappa 0.12). In total, 40.8% underestimated and 22.2% overestimated their sitting time. The ANOVA showed significant differences in activPAL-SIT between the different SED-GIH answer categories (p < 0.001). The Chi2 showed a significant difference in proportion of individuals sitting more than 10 h per day within each SED-GIH answer category. ICC for the test-retest reliability of SED-GIH was excellent with ICC = 0.86, and the weighted Kappa showed an agreement of 0.77.

CONCLUSIONS: The unanchored single item SED-GIH question showed excellent reliability but poor validity in the investigated populations. Validity and reliability of SED-GIH is in line with other questionnaires that are commonly used when assessing sitting time.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BioMed Central, 2019
Keywords
Adults, Office-based work, Older adults, Reliability, Sedentary behaviour, Sitting, Validity, activPAL
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Research subject
Medicine/Technology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:gih:diva-5520 (URN)10.1186/s12889-018-6329-1 (DOI)30611226 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2019-01-08 Created: 2019-01-08 Last updated: 2019-01-08
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0003-4361-6502

Search in DiVA

Show all publications