A checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of validation studies on self-report instruments for physical activity and sedentary behavior.

Maria Hagströmer, Barbara Ainsworth, Lydia Kwak, Heather R. Bowles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of physical activity & health
Volume9 Suppl 1
StatePublished - Jan 2012

Fingerprint

Validation Studies
Checklist
Self Report
Reproducibility of Results
PubMed
Guidelines

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of validation studies on self-report instruments for physical activity and sedentary behavior. / Hagströmer, Maria; Ainsworth, Barbara; Kwak, Lydia; Bowles, Heather R.

In: Journal of physical activity & health, Vol. 9 Suppl 1, 01.2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3fafc57412434afc959af3d6c4c49813,
title = "A checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of validation studies on self-report instruments for physical activity and sedentary behavior.",
abstract = "The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.",
author = "Maria Hagstr{\"o}mer and Barbara Ainsworth and Lydia Kwak and Bowles, {Heather R.}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9 Suppl 1",
journal = "Journal of Physical Activity and Health",
issn = "1543-3080",
publisher = "Human Kinetics Publishers Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of validation studies on self-report instruments for physical activity and sedentary behavior.

AU - Hagströmer, Maria

AU - Ainsworth, Barbara

AU - Kwak, Lydia

AU - Bowles, Heather R.

PY - 2012/1

Y1 - 2012/1

N2 - The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.

AB - The quality of methodological papers assessing physical activity instruments depends upon the rigor of a study's design. We present a checklist to assess key criteria for instrument validation studies. A Medline/PubMed search was performed to identify guidelines for evaluating the methodological quality of instrument validation studies. Based upon the literature, a pilot version of a checklist was developed consisting of 21 items with 3 subscales: 1) quality of the reported data (9 items: assess whether the reported information is sufficient to make an unbiased assessment of the findings); 2) external validity of the results (3 items: assess the extent to which the findings are generalizable); 3) internal validity of the study (9 items: assess the rigor of the study design). The checklist was tested for interrater reliability and feasibility with 6 raters. Raters viewed the checklist as helpful for reviewing studies. They suggested minor wording changes for 8 items to clarify intent. One item was divided into 2 items for a total of 22 items. Checklists may be useful to assess the quality of studies designed to validate physical activity instruments. Future research should test checklist internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861705116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84861705116&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 22287445

AN - SCOPUS:84861705116

VL - 9 Suppl 1

JO - Journal of Physical Activity and Health

JF - Journal of Physical Activity and Health

SN - 1543-3080

ER -