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 8 Summary table of the reliability and feasibility of the measurement tools

Method	Reliability	Feasibility	Reference
Calorimetry			[60,61,62, 65,66,67, 131, 132]
Direct observation			[72, 76, 87, 91, 111, 133]
Heart rate monitors
Polar Vantage XL Monitor			[73]
Accelerometers
Fitbit (Zip)			[91]
Triaxial Research Tracker 3 (RT3)			[117]
Actigraph (GT3X/+)			[75, 76, 113, 114, 129]
Actigraph (CSA/MTI)			[68, 82, 83, 85, 115, 122]
Actigraph (wGT3X-BT)			[64]
Actigraph (GT1M)			[78, 113, 116, 118, 124, 125, 128]
ActivPAL			[65, 78, 87,88,89, 113, 130]
Actical			[86, 129, 130]
Actiwatch (AW16)			[66, 83]
Actiwatch (Spectrum)			[76]
Actiwatch-L			[120]
Caloriecounter			[120]
Tracmor_D			[67]
Caltrac			[134]
Best Fit Friend			[114]
Pedometers
Yamax (SW-700)			[117, 126]
Yamax Digiwalker (SW-200)			[95, 115, 116]
MVP 4 Walk4Life Digital			[99]
Omron Walking Style Pro (HJ-720IT-E2)			[118]
Proxy reported measurement tools
Children’s Leisure Activities Study Survey (CLASS)			[127]
Questionnaire developed for parents of pre-schoolers in Mexico			[124]
Teacher activity rating			[121]
TV Diary			[128]
Leisure time report			[121]
Pre School Physical Activity Questionnaire (PRE-PAQ)			[122]
Netherland’s Physical Activity Questionnaire (NPAQ)			[123]
‘Toybox’ Primary Caregivers Questionnaire			[135]
Children’s physical activity questionnaire (CPAQ)			[68]

*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
This table shows a summary of the results of studies where they tested the reliability or feasibility of the measurement tool. The summary ratings were based on the quality of the tools for the 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

ISSN: 1479-5868