Does the WHO GPAQ match a wearable for activity and sitting?
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
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.
Inspect source passages
Does the WHO GPAQ match a wearable for activity and sitting?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
95 participants completed baseline; change was assessed in 41.
Results 95 participants completed baseline measurements (44 females, 51 males; mean age 44 years, (SD 14); measurements of change were calculated for 41 (21 females, 20 males; mean age 46 years, (SD 14).
GPAQ–accelerometer MVPA agreement was r=0.48; sedentary r=0.19.
There was moderate agreement between GPAQ and accelerometer for MVPA mins/day (r = 0.48) and poor agreement for SB (r = 0.19).
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
0 of 11 answers reviewed
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
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