Table 1.
A priori drafted hypotheses for the evaluation of construct validity of questionnaires assessinga constructs of physical activity, sedentary behavior and/or sleep, subdivided by level of evidenceb, and criteria for acceptable correlations/relationships with comparator instruments or subgroupscd
| Construct assessed | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical activity | |||
| Physical activity, all constructs (i.e., including at least indoor and outdoor activities of all intensities) | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA, VPA or MVPA ≥0.40 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Physical activity, not all constructs or timeframes | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA; corresponding timeframe ≥0.60 |
Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA; total daytime ≥0.40 Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA and VPA ≥ 0.50 |
Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Physical activity, single constructs (e.g., outdoor play) |
Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40 Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA and VPA ≥ 0.50 |
Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 | |
| Vigorous physical activity | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for VPA ≥ 0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Moderate physical activity | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MPA ≥ 0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Light physical activity | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for LPA ≥ 0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for MVPA ≥0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for TPA ≥ 0.40 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 |
| Sedentary behavior | |||
| Sedentary behavior, all constructs (i.e., including at least screen time and non-screen leisure time activities) | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB ≥ 0.60 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 | |
| Stationary behavior | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB ≥ 0.50 | Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 | |
| Screen time | Diary, logs ≥0.60 | Questionnaire corresponding constructs ≥0.70 | |
| Sedentary behavior, not all constructs or time frames |
Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB; corresponding timeframe ≥0.60 Acc. cut-point/algorithm for SB; non-corresponding timeframe ≥0.50 |
Questionnaire or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 | |
| Sleep behavior | |||
| Sleep behavior, all constructs (i.e., including at least total sleep duration, sleep latency and night awakenings) | Videosomnography ≥0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.40 |
Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep construct. Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems. |
| Sleep behavior, not all constructs or time frames | Videosomnography ≥0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.40 |
Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep construct. Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems. |
| Sleep duration | Videosomnography ≥0.60 | Acc. cut-point/algorithm for sleep ≥0.50 |
Questionnaire, log, or diary, corresponding constructs ≥0.70 Acc. or diary not significantly different in the measured sleep duration. Discriminative validity: children without sleep problems score significantly better than children with sleep problems. |
Abbreviations: Acc accelerometer, LPA light physical activity, MPA moderate physical activity, MVPA moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, TPA total physical activity, VPA vigorous physical activity
a Since a priori drafted hypotheses for construct validity were often lacking in included studies, we formulated criteria with regard to the relationships with other instruments (e.g., accelerometers) or subgroups
b Level of evidence: level 1 indicating strong evidence, level 2 indicating moderate evidence, and level 3 indicating weak evidence. These levels of evidence indicate the confidence in the comparison method to accurately assess the relevant construct
b The criteria for acceptable correlations with comparator instruments are based on the similarity of the construct that is measured
d Table adapted from previous reviews by Hidding et al. [20, 21]