Comment on "Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behavior measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered"

Caroline B Terwee; L B Mokkink; L M Hidding; T M Altenburg; M N van Poppel; M J M Chinapaw

doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0392-8

Comment on "Should we reframe how we think about physical activity and sedentary behavior measurement? Validity and reliability reconsidered"

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Jun 10:13:66. doi: 10.1186/s12966-016-0392-8.

Authors

Caroline B Terwee¹, L B Mokkink², L M Hidding³, T M Altenburg³, M N van Poppel³, M J M Chinapaw³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, F-building MedFac, P.O. box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. cb.terwee@vumc.nl.
² Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, F-building MedFac, P.O. box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

With great interest we read the article by Kelly et al. on the measurement of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) (Kelly P et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 13:(1) 32, 2016). We appreciate the invitation of the authors to provide feedback on their ideas and we take this opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Our main proposition is that this field can learn much from the field of quality of life research and the methodology developed for validating quality of life questionnaires.

Keywords: Physical activity; Reliability; Sedentary behavior; Validity.

Publication types

Editorial
Comment

MeSH terms

Humans
Motor Activity*
Quality of Life
Reproducibility of Results
Sedentary Behavior*
Surveys and Questionnaires