Skip to content
PaperFren

Does the WHO GPAQ match a wearable for activity and sitting?

Open paper intelligence

In 95 adults, GPAQ moderately matched Actigraph MVPA (r=0.48) but poorly captured sitting time (r=0.19), with a 349 min/day sedentary gap.

Source

Validity of the global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ) in assessing levels and change in moderate-vigorous physical activity and sedentary behaviour

Cleland CL, Hunter RF, Kee F, et al. · BMC public health · 2014

doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1255Read the full paper ↗426 citationscc by

Study at a glance

Design
Cross-sectional — Criterion-validity study of WHO GPAQ vs 7-day Actigraph GT3X; random subsample repeated at 3–6 months to assess change.
N
N=95 · 101 selected; 95 completed baseline (44 female, 51 male); change analyses in 41.
Population
Adults sampled from an ongoing study, stratified by GPAQ activity level (low/moderate/high) and sex.
Outcome
Agreement of GPAQ vs accelerometer for MVPA and sedentary time (mins/day) and for change.

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

What they did

Randomly selected 101 adults stratified by GPAQ activity and sex, had them wear an Actigraph GT3X for 7 days and complete GPAQ on day 7, and repeated the protocol 3–6 months later in a subsample.

What they found

95 completed baseline (mean age 44). MVPA mins/day agreed moderately (r=0.48; mean difference −0.8 min/day) with over-reporting among the most active. Sedentary behaviour agreed poorly (r=0.19; +348.7 min/day). Change in MVPA correlated moderately (r=0.52); change in sitting did not (r=−0.024).

The limits

What it doesn't show

A 95-person Northern Ireland sample cannot prove GPAQ works in every country; change n=41 was underpowered, and self-report still misses posture-level sitting.

Key terms

GPAQ
WHO Global Physical Activity Questionnaire used for MVPA and sedentary surveillance.
MVPA
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, compared here in minutes per day.
Sedentary behaviour (SB)
Sitting/lying waking time; GPAQ tracked this much less accurately than MVPA.
Actigraph GT3X
Hip-worn accelerometer used as the 7-day objective criterion.
Bland–Altman analysis
Plots of agreement and bias between self-report and accelerometer mins/day.
Spearman’s rho
Rank correlation used for criterion validity and for change.

Flashcards

1 / 11

Research intelligence for this paper

See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.

Open paper intelligence

Quiz yourself

1 / 6

Baseline analytic n was:

Common questions

How many people completed baseline?

95 of 101 selected (44 female, 51 male; mean age 44).

How well did GPAQ match MVPA?

Moderate agreement, r=0.48; mean difference only −0.8 min/day.

How well did it match sitting time?

Poorly (r=0.19) with +348.7 min/day vs the accelerometer.

Can GPAQ track change?

Change in MVPA correlated moderately (r=0.52); sedentary change did not.

More on Health behaviour