Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Research Methodology and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Psychometric properties of two physical activity questionnaires, the AQuAA and the PASE, in cancer patients

Roberto DK Liu1, Laurien M Buffart2*, Marie José Kersten3, Marjolein Spiering3, Johannes Brug2, Willem van Mechelen1 and Mai JM Chinapaw1

Author Affiliations

1 EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

2 EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands

3 Department of Hematology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011, 11:30  doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-30

Published: 16 March 2011

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of two self-report physical activity (PA) questionnaires - the AQuAA (Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents) and PASE (Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly) - in cancer patients.

Methods

Test-retest reliability was determined by administering the questionnaires twice within 5 days. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD) were calculated. Construct validity was determined by comparing the questionnaire results with ActiGraph accelerometer scores using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs) and ICCs. Content validity was examined using the Three-Step Test-Interview (TSTI).

Results

Reliability for the AQuAA scores were fair to excellent (ICC = 0.57 to 0.78). Reliability for the PASE scores ranged from good to excellent (ICC = 0.67 to 0.90). Correlations between the ActiGraph and the AQuAA and the PASE were low (rs = 0.05 and 0.16 respectively, and ICC = -0.001 to 0.44). The TSTI showed that participants experienced difficulties with the examples provided with the questions, the perceptions of intensity level of PA, and with recalling the time spent on PA.

Conclusions

Both questionnaires showed good to excellent test-retest reliability for most scores. Construct validity of both questionnaires was low, as indicated by the low correlations with the ActiGraph. Except for a few difficulties that participants perceived when filling out the questionnaires, the content validity of both questionnaires was good.