A systematic review of the validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement tools used to assess the physical activity and sedentary behaviour of pre-school aged children

Table 6 Summary table of level 3 validity evidence of the measurement tools

Measurement tools under study	Outcome measures							References
Measurement tools under study	SB	Posture allocation	LPA	MVPA	TPA	Levels of activity	Step count	References
Direct observation
OSRAC-P (Observation System for Recording Physical Activity in Children- Preschool)								[110]
SOFIT-P (System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time for Preschoolers)								[111]
Accelerometers
Fitbit (Flex)								[112]
ActivPAL								[113]
Best Fit Friend								[114]
Pedometers
Yamax Digi-Walker (SW-200)								[115, 116]
Yamax Digi-Walker (SW-700)								[117]
Omron Walking Style Pro (HJ-720IT-E2)								[118, 119]
Proxy reported measurement tools
Nursery teacher’s report (based on Toyama Cohort Study survey questions)								[120]
Leisure time report								[121]
Pre School Physical Activity Questionnaire (PRE-PAQ)								[122]
Netherland’s Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ)								[123]
Questionnaire developed for parents of pre-schoolers in Mexico								[124]
Teacher activity rating								[121]
7 day activity diary (adapted from CLASS)								[125]
Habitual Activity Estimation Scale (HAES)								[126]
Children’s physical activity questionnaire (CPAQ)								[68]
Children’s Leisure Activities Study Survey (CLASS)								[127]
TV Diary								[128]
Teacher/mother reported habitual PA								[86, 98]

This table shows a summary of the results of studies where they aimed to compare a particular measurement tool (e.g. Pre School Physical Activity Questionnaire (PRE-PAQ)) against a measure which is considered to have relatively low validity such as a device based measurement tool (see Table 2 for a full explanation)). The summary ratings were based on the quality of the tools for this specific measurement property. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘good’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘good’. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘moderate’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘moderate’. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘weak’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘weak’. In instances where the measurement tool had mixed evidence in the studies, such as studies with outcomes of ‘weak’ and ‘moderate’, or ‘moderate’ and ‘good’, the overall assessment was deemed to be the most positive of the two outcomes. All tools of reasonable quality where any evidence was available are included in this table, including where only one or two studies reported that result.
*Methodology used to assess the ability of the tool is detailed in the methods above and is indicated in the summary table as:
Good = Moderate= Weak=
Key for colour of boxes:
= evidence from ≥3 studies
= evidence from <3 studies

ISSN: 1479-5868