Health behaviour
Does the WHO GPAQ match a wearable for activity and sitting?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
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.
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.
Key findings
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).
Methodology
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.
Limitations
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.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.