Skip to main content

Table 1 A priori drafted hypotheses for the evaluation of construct validity of questionnaires assessinga constructs of physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or sleep, subdivided by level of evidenceb, and criteria for acceptable correlations/relationships with comparator instruments or subgroupscd

From: A systematic review of proxy-report questionnaires assessing physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or sleep in young children (aged 0–5 years)

Construct assessed

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Physical activity

 Physical activity, all constructs (i.e., including at least indoor and outdoor activities of all intensities)

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA, VPA or MVPA ≥0.40

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Physical activity, not all constructs or timeframes

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA; corresponding timeframe ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA; total daytime ≥0.40

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA and VPA ≥ 0.50

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Physical activity, single constructs (e.g., outdoor play)

 

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA and VPA ≥ 0.50

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Vigorous physical activity

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for VPA ≥ 0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Moderate physical activity

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA ≥ 0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Light physical activity

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for LPA ≥ 0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MVPA ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

Sedentary behavior

 Sedentary behavior, all constructs (i.e., including at least screen time and non-screen leisure time activities)

 

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB ≥ 0.60

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Stationary behavior

 

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB ≥ 0.50

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Screen time

 

Diary, logs ≥0.60

Questionnaire corresponding constructs ≥0.70

 Sedentary behavior, not all constructs or time frames

 

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB; corresponding timeframe ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB; non-corresponding timeframe ≥0.50

Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

Sleep behavior

 Sleep behavior, all constructs (i.e., including at least total sleep duration, sleep latency and night awakenings)

Videosomnography ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.40

Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep construct.

Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems.

 Sleep behavior, not all constructs or time frames

Videosomnography ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.40

Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep construct.

Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems.

 Sleep duration

Videosomnography ≥0.60

Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.50

Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70

Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep duration.

Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems.

  1. Abbreviations: Acc accelerometer, LPA light physical activity, MPA moderate physical activity, MVPA moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, TPA total physical activity, VPA vigorous physical activity
  2. a Since a priori drafted hypotheses for construct validity were often lacking in included studies, we formulated criteria with regard to the relationships with other instruments (e.g., accelerometers) or subgroups
  3. b Level of evidence: level 1 indicating strong evidence, level 2 indicating moderate evidence, and level 3 indicating weak evidence. These levels of evidence indicate the confidence in the comparison method to accurately assess the relevant construct
  4. b The criteria for acceptable correlations with comparator instruments are based on the similarity of the construct that is measured
  5. d Table adapted from previous reviews by Hidding et al. [20, 21]