The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures.
Accelerometry
/ methods
Adult
Exercise
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Occupational Health
/ standards
Occupations
Reproducibility of Results
Sedentary Behavior
Self Report
Self-Assessment
Sitting Position
Standing Position
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Time Factors
Walking
/ statistics & numerical data
Work
/ statistics & numerical data
Workplace
/ statistics & numerical data
Accelerometer
OSPAQ
Occupational physical activity
Physically active professions
Sedentary professions
Validity
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jul 2020
06 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
12
02
2020
accepted:
29
06
2020
entrez:
8
7
2020
pubmed:
8
7
2020
medline:
24
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions. Data from the Flemish Employees' Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity. The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed. The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions.
METHODS
METHODS
Data from the Flemish Employees' Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32631292
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09180-9
pii: 10.1186/s12889-020-09180-9
pmc: PMC7339490
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1072Subventions
Organisme : Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds
ID : 01N01616
Références
Diabetologia. 2012 Nov;55(11):2895-905
pubmed: 22890825
Occup Environ Med. 2004 Dec;61(12):1027-31
pubmed: 15550610
J Phys Act Health. 2012 Jan;9 Suppl 1:S76-84
pubmed: 22287451
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011 Oct;43(10):1907-12
pubmed: 21926535
Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60
pubmed: 10501650
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1381-95
pubmed: 12900694
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2011 Jan;37(1):6-29
pubmed: 20802979
Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76:43-7
pubmed: 25895842
J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Mar;52(3):219-27
pubmed: 10210239
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 19;16(1):836
pubmed: 27542603
Eur J Epidemiol. 2013 Mar;28(3):241-7
pubmed: 23329153
Int J Sports Med. 2014 Jun;35(6):534-40
pubmed: 24258469
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 16;7(1):e013251
pubmed: 28093433
Occup Environ Med. 2016 Apr;73(4):246-53
pubmed: 26740688
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015 Nov 25;12:144
pubmed: 26608219
Diabetologia. 2016 Dec;59(12):2527-2545
pubmed: 27747395
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Jan;11(1):76-84
pubmed: 23249722
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012 Feb;9(2):391-407
pubmed: 22470299
Work. 2016 Oct 17;55(2):359-371
pubmed: 27689593
Ergonomics. 2015;58(6):953-65
pubmed: 25588819
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2013 Sep;28(5):575-83
pubmed: 23928923
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2012 Apr;85(3):305-10
pubmed: 21695437
JAMA. 2011 Jun 15;305(23):2448-55
pubmed: 21673296
Sports Med. 2017 Sep;47(9):1821-1845
pubmed: 28303543
J Sci Med Sport. 2019 Aug;22(8):924-928
pubmed: 30956062
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1094-102
pubmed: 19997030
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jun 16;16:515
pubmed: 27306667
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2016 May;89(4):575-82
pubmed: 26511639
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 Nov;23(17):1883-1893
pubmed: 27432835
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jul 29;14:762
pubmed: 25069528
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jun 15;19(1):765
pubmed: 31202266
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012 Jan;44(1):118-25
pubmed: 21659903
Br J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;46(4):291-5
pubmed: 21459873
Physiol Meas. 2014 Nov;35(11):2319-28
pubmed: 25341050