A tool to assess fitness among adults in public health studies - Predictive validity of the FFB-Mot questionnaire.
Activities of daily living
Exercise
Health-related fitness
Motor fitness
Physical activity
Physical fitness
Sports activity
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 07 2023
12 07 2023
Historique:
received:
23
03
2023
accepted:
22
06
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
13
7
2023
entrez:
12
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Fitness has important implications for physical activity behavior and is associated with various health-related outcomes. It can be assessed through a test battery or a self-reported questionnaire. One example is the FFB-Mot (Funktionsfragebogen Motorik; engl. functional fitness questionnaire) which consist of 28 items to assess four components of fitness in adults: cardiorespiratory fitness/ endurance, muscular strength, gross motor coordination, and flexibility. The aims of this manuscript were to (1) provide an English-version of the FFB-Mot questionnaire (developed from the German-version using translation and back-translation) to the international community of researchers in the areas of physical activity, fitness and health in adults, and (2) examine the predictive validity of the FFB-Mot questionnaire in a large sample of community-dwelling adults. We used data from a longitudinal study in Germany with four measurement waves over a period of 18 years, with samples ranging between 310 and 437 participants (1572 adults in total, mean ages 46-58 years). To assess predictive validity, we calculated Pearson correlations between FFB-Mot data collected in 1997 and external health-related criteria (i.e., subjective health status, physician-rated health status, back pain, physical complaints and physical activity in minutes per week) collected in 2002, 2010, and 2015, and separately for males and females. We observed correlations between higher FFB-Mot scores with better subjective health status (in 2002: males, r = 0.25; females, r = 0.18; in 2010: males, r = 0.29; females, r = 0.28; in 2015: males, r = 0.40), and higher physical activity (in 2002: males, r = 0.24; females, r = 0.25; in 2010: males, r = 0.30; females, r = 0.38; in 2015: females, r = 0.27). Higher FFB-Mot scores were also correlated with lower back pain (in 2002: males, r = -0.23; females, r = -0.25; in 2010: females, r = -0.22), less physical complaints (in 2002: males, r = -0.36; females, r = -0.24), and better physician-rated health status (in 2002: males, r = -0.41; females, r = -0.29, 2010: males, r = -0.38; females, r = -0.44; in 2015: males, r = -0.47). Our results suggest that the FFB-Mot to assess fitness in adults has predictive validity for health-related outcomes as indicated by significant correlations, albeit some effect sizes are small. The FFB-Mot may be used as one-time assessment of self-reported fitness, or for repeated testing to assess change of self-reported fitness over time and in different settings (e.g., public health research).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Fitness has important implications for physical activity behavior and is associated with various health-related outcomes. It can be assessed through a test battery or a self-reported questionnaire. One example is the FFB-Mot (Funktionsfragebogen Motorik; engl. functional fitness questionnaire) which consist of 28 items to assess four components of fitness in adults: cardiorespiratory fitness/ endurance, muscular strength, gross motor coordination, and flexibility. The aims of this manuscript were to (1) provide an English-version of the FFB-Mot questionnaire (developed from the German-version using translation and back-translation) to the international community of researchers in the areas of physical activity, fitness and health in adults, and (2) examine the predictive validity of the FFB-Mot questionnaire in a large sample of community-dwelling adults.
METHODS
We used data from a longitudinal study in Germany with four measurement waves over a period of 18 years, with samples ranging between 310 and 437 participants (1572 adults in total, mean ages 46-58 years). To assess predictive validity, we calculated Pearson correlations between FFB-Mot data collected in 1997 and external health-related criteria (i.e., subjective health status, physician-rated health status, back pain, physical complaints and physical activity in minutes per week) collected in 2002, 2010, and 2015, and separately for males and females.
RESULTS
We observed correlations between higher FFB-Mot scores with better subjective health status (in 2002: males, r = 0.25; females, r = 0.18; in 2010: males, r = 0.29; females, r = 0.28; in 2015: males, r = 0.40), and higher physical activity (in 2002: males, r = 0.24; females, r = 0.25; in 2010: males, r = 0.30; females, r = 0.38; in 2015: females, r = 0.27). Higher FFB-Mot scores were also correlated with lower back pain (in 2002: males, r = -0.23; females, r = -0.25; in 2010: females, r = -0.22), less physical complaints (in 2002: males, r = -0.36; females, r = -0.24), and better physician-rated health status (in 2002: males, r = -0.41; females, r = -0.29, 2010: males, r = -0.38; females, r = -0.44; in 2015: males, r = -0.47).
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that the FFB-Mot to assess fitness in adults has predictive validity for health-related outcomes as indicated by significant correlations, albeit some effect sizes are small. The FFB-Mot may be used as one-time assessment of self-reported fitness, or for repeated testing to assess change of self-reported fitness over time and in different settings (e.g., public health research).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37438718
doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16174-w
pii: 10.1186/s12889-023-16174-w
pmc: PMC10337075
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1340Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Neurology. 2018 Apr 10;90(15):e1298-e1305
pubmed: 29540588
Br J Sports Med. 2011 May;45(6):504-10
pubmed: 20418526
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2006;16(2):193-204
pubmed: 16700660
Circulation. 2018 Jun 12;137(24):2583-2591
pubmed: 29632216
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990 Dec;22(6):863-70
pubmed: 2287267
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Nov;12(11):1461-8
pubmed: 25635419
J Sports Sci Med. 2014 May 01;13(2):338-48
pubmed: 24790488
Trials. 2012 Apr 27;13:46
pubmed: 22540391
Eur J Sport Sci. 2017 Sep;17(8):1090-1099
pubmed: 28747143
Can J Public Health. 2007 Mar-Apr;98(2):121-4
pubmed: 17441535
Arch Public Health. 2014 Dec 18;72(1):45
pubmed: 25810912
Stroke. 2016 Jul;47(7):1720-6
pubmed: 27283202
BMC Fam Pract. 2015 Jul 22;16:84
pubmed: 26198433
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Jul;91(7):849-57
pubmed: 27378037
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
pubmed: 14258950
Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):701-11
pubmed: 21441238
J Affect Disord. 2019 Oct 1;257:748-757
pubmed: 31398589
BMC Public Health. 2016 Mar 15;16:260
pubmed: 27112721
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):162-8
pubmed: 23381040
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2017 Oct;49(10):2048-2055
pubmed: 28489687
JAMA Oncol. 2015 May;1(2):231-7
pubmed: 26181028
Resuscitation. 2014 Jan;85(1):112-8
pubmed: 24012684