The reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the European Health Interview Survey - Physical Activity Questionnaire (EHIS-PAQ)

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 124 - 133, 27.05.2021

Mehmet Özkeskin , Fatih Özden

https://doi.org/10.30621/jbachs.871749

Abstract

Purpose: To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Turkish version of the EHIS-PAQ and to evaluate its reliability and validity in young adults.
Methods: A total of 431 young adults were assessed with the Turkish version of the EHIS-PAQ and International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). One week later, 117 participants refilled the Turkish EHIS-PAQ for the test-retest reliability. Reproducibility and construct validity was analyzed with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient, respectively. In addition, standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) were calculated for the Turkish EHIS-PAQ.
Results: The mean age of the participants were 21.29.8 years. The ICC score for the total Physical Activity (PA) of Turkish EHIS-PAQ was 0.873 (CI:0.81-0.91). Test-retest reliability for the total score was excellent (ICC>0.80). The highest correlation was observed between the walking minute value of Turkish EHIS-PAQ and the walking PA sub-score of IPAQ-SF, as expected (r=0.625, p<0.001). There was also a strong correlation between the Transportation-related PA subscore of the Turkish EHIS-PAQ and IPAQ-SF's Walking PA score (r=0.592, p<0.001). SEM95 and MDC95 for the Transportation-related PA were 172.5 and 476.8, respectively.
Conclusion: The Turkish version of the EHIS-PAQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire in young adults.

Keywords

EHIS-PAQ, Reliability, Turkish version, Validity

References

• 1. Armstrong T, Bull F. Development of the world health organization global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ). J Public Health. 2006;14(2):66-70.
• 2. Ezzati M, Riboli E. Behavioral and dietary risk factors for noncommunicable diseases.. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(10):954-64.
• 3. Hallal PC, Martins RC, Ramírez A. The Lancet physical activity Observatory: promoting physical activity worldwide. Lancet. 2014;9942(384):471-2.
• 4. Can S. Physical Activity Measurement: Objective and Subjective Methods. Turk. J. Sports Med. 2019;54(4).
• 5. Helmerhorst HHJF, Brage S, Warren J, Besson H, Ekelund U. A systematic review of reliability and objective criterion-related validity of physical activity questionnaires. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1):103.
• 6. Albanes D, Conway JM, Taylor PR, Moe PW, Judd J. Validation and comparison of eight physical activity questionnaires. Epidemiology. 1990:65-71.
• 7. Strath SJ, Kaminsky LA, Ainsworth BE, Ekelund U, Freedson PS, Gary RA, et al. Guide to the assessment of physical activity: clinical and research applications: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128(20):2259-79.
• 8. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Gorber SC, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5(1):56.
• 9. van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, Van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for adults. Sports Med. 2010;40(7):565-600.
• 10. Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM. Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(1):115.
• 11. Bull FC, Maslin TS, Armstrong T. Global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ): nine country reliability and validity study. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6(6):790-804.
• 12. Baumeister SE, Ricci C, Kohler S, Fischer B, Töpfer C, Finger JD, et al. Physical activity surveillance in the European Union: reliability and validity of the European health interview survey-physical activity questionnaire (EHIS-PAQ). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.2016;13(1):61.
• 13. Finger JD, Tafforeau J, Gisle L, Oja L, Ziese T, Thelen J, et al. Development of the European health interview survey-physical activity questionnaire (EHIS-PAQ) to monitor physical activity in the European Union. Arch Public Health 2015;73(1):1-11.
• 14. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91.
• 15. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32.
• 16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-91.
• 17. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-60.
• 18. Craig C, Marshall A, Sjostrom M, Bauman A, Lee P, Macfarlane D, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form. 2017.
• 19. World Health O. Global recommendations on physical activity for health: World Health Organization; 2010.
• 20. Saglam M, Arikan H, Savci S, Inal-Ince D, Bosnak-Guclu M, Karabulut E, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Turkish version. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;111(1):278-84.
• 21. Chun MY. Validity and reliability of Korean version of international physical activity questionnaire short form in the elderly. Korean J Fam Med. 2012;33(3):144.
• 22. Wang C, Chen P, Zhuang J. Validity and Reliability of International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form in Chinese Youth. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2013;84(sup2):S80-S6.
• 23. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice: Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ; 2009.
• 24. Juniper EF. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. Quality of life and pharamacoeconomics in clinical trials. 1996:49-56.
• 25. Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stockl D, Thienpont LM. Application of the Bland–Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice.. Clin. Chem 2002;48(5):799-801.
• 26. Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine.. Sports Med. 1998;26(4):217-38.
• 27. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.
• 28. Bofan M, Mores N, Baron M, Dabrowska M, Valente S, Schmid M, et al. Within-day and between-day repeatability of measurements with an electronic nose in patients with COPD. J. Breath Res.2013;7(1):017103.
• 29. Lowe CJM, Isaac C, Kelly P, Barker KL. Measuring step count: why it is important not to assume measures are reliable. Physiotherapy. 1920;110:1-4.
• 30. Gatti AA, Stratford PW, Brenneman EC, Maly MR. GT3X+ accelerometer placement affects the reliability of step-counts measured during running and pedal-revolution counts measured during bicycling.. J. Sports Sci. 2016;34(12):1168-75.
• 31. Scuderi GR, Sikorskii A, Bourne RB, Lonner JH, Benjamin JB, Noble PC. The Knee Society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):134-42.
• 32. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J. Clin. Epidemiol.2010;63(1):28-36.