A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Reed, Jennifer L.
Buckley, John P.
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractBACKGROUND:Sedentary behaviour (SB) is a risk factor for chronic disease and premature mortality. While many individual studies have examined the reliability and validity of various self-report measures for assessing SB, it is not clear, in general, how self-reported SB (e.g., questionnaires, logs, ecological momentary assessments (EMAs)) compares to device measures (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers). OBJECTIVE:The primary objective of this systematic review was to compare self-report versus device measures of SB in adults. METHODS:Six bibliographic databases were searched to identify all studies which included a comparable self-report and device measure of SB in adults. Risk of bias within and across studies was assessed. Results were synthesized using meta-analyses. RESULTS:The review included 185 unique studies. A total of 123 studies comprising 173 comparisons and data from 55,199 participants were used to examine general criterion validity. The average mean difference was -105.19 minutes/day (95% CI: -127.21, -83.17); self-report underestimated sedentary time by ~1.74 hours/day compared to device measures. Self-reported time spent sedentary at work was ~40 minutes higher than when assessed by devices. Single item measures performed more poorly than multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries. On average, when compared to inclinometers, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries were not significantly different, but had substantial amount of variability (up to 6 hours/day within individual studies) with approximately half over-reporting and half under-reporting. A total of 54 studies provided an assessment of reliability of a self-report measure, on average the reliability was good (ICC = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS:Evidence from this review suggests that single-item self-report measures generally underestimate sedentary time when compared to device measures. For accuracy, multi-item questionnaires, EMAs and logs/diaries with a shorter recall period should be encouraged above single item questions and longer recall periods if sedentary time is a primary outcome of study. Users should also be aware of the high degree of variability between and within tools. Studies should exert caution when comparing associations between different self-report and device measures with health outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019118755.
CitationPrince, S.A., Cardilli, L., Reed, J.L. et al. (2020) A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3
JournalInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
PubMed ID32131845 (pubmed)
Description© 2020 The Authors. Published by BMC. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3
SponsorsDr. Stephanie Prince was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) – Public Health Agency of Canada Health System Impact Fellowship. Dr. Jennifer Reed is funded, in part, by a CIHR New Investigator Salary Award. Dr. Jennifer Reed was awarded a Planning and Dissemination Grant (#150435) from the CIHR to support Open Access publication charges.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Licence for published version: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
- A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Authors: Prince SA, Cardilli L, Reed JL, Saunders TJ, Kite C, Douillette K, Fournier K, Buckley JP
- Issue date: 2020 Mar 4
- Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Authors: Bakker EA, Hartman YAW, Hopman MTE, Hopkins ND, Graves LEF, Dunstan DW, Healy GN, Eijsvogels TMH, Thijssen DHJ
- Issue date: 2020 Jun 15
- Reliability and validity of three questionnaires measuring context-specific sedentary behaviour and associated correlates in adolescents, adults and older adults.
- Authors: Busschaert C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Holle V, Chastin SF, Cardon G, De Cocker K
- Issue date: 2015 Sep 17
- Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL).
- Authors: Chastin SFM, Dontje ML, Skelton DA, Čukić I, Shaw RJ, Gill JMR, Greig CA, Gale CR, Deary IJ, Der G, Dall PM, Seniors USP team
- Issue date: 2018 Feb 26