Skip to main content

Table 7 Summary table of level 4 validity evidence of the measurement tools

From: 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

Measurement tools under study

Outcome measures

Reference

SB

MVPA

TPA

Activity counts

Habitual physical activity reports

Combined heart rate and accelerometer and accelerometers

 Actiheart, Actical and Triaxial Research Tracker 3 (RT3)

   

 

[57]

Accelerometers

 Actigraph (GT1M)1-6 and RT37-10

   

 

[80]

 Actigraph (GT1M)4 and ActivPAL

    

[78]

 Actigraph (GT3X+)3 and Actical11

  

[129]

 Actigraph (GT3X)1,3 and Actiwatch (Spectrum)12

   

 

[76]

 Actigraph (CSA/MTI) and Actiwatch (AW16)

   

 

[83]

 Actical4 and ActivPAL

    

[130]

Proxy reported measurement tools

 Parental vs teacher reports

    

[98, 100]

  1. This table shows a summary of the results of studies where they aimed to compare two (or more) of the same type of measurement tools where neither tool is considered to have known higher validity (e.g. comparison between Actical and ActivPAL). 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.
  2. Cut points: 1Sirard et al. 2005 [85]; 2Freedson et al. 2005 [103]; 3Pate et al., 2006 [58]; 4Evenson et al. 2008 [71]; 5Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2011 [102]; 6Puyau et al. 2002 [70]; 7Vanhelst et al. 2000 [105]; 8Rowlands et al. 2004 [106]; 9Sun et al. 2008 [107]; 10Chu et al. 2007 [108]; 11Pfeiffer et al. 2006 [63]; 12Ekblom et al. 2012 [109]
  3. *Methodology used to assess the ability of the tool is detailed in the methods above and is indicated in the summary table as:
  4. Good = Moderate= Weak=
  5. Key for colour of boxes:
  6. = evidence from ≥3 studies
  7. = evidence from <3 studies
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us