Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 5, 56

A Comparison of Direct Versus Self-Report Measures for Assessing Physical Activity in Adults: A Systematic Review

Affiliations

A Comparison of Direct Versus Self-Report Measures for Assessing Physical Activity in Adults: A Systematic Review

Stéphanie A Prince et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act.

Abstract

Background: Accurate assessment is required to assess current and changing physical activity levels, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase activity levels. This study systematically reviewed the literature to determine the extent of agreement between subjectively (self-report e.g. questionnaire, diary) and objectively (directly measured; e.g. accelerometry, doubly labeled water) assessed physical activity in adults.

Methods: Eight electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies of adult populations. Searching identified 4,463 potential articles. Initial screening found that 293 examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured physical activity and met the eligibility criteria. Data abstraction was completed for 187 articles, which described comparable data and/or comparisons, while 76 articles lacked comparable data or comparisons, and a further 30 did not meet the review's eligibility requirements. A risk of bias assessment was conducted for all articles from which data was abstracted.

Results: Correlations between self-report and direct measures were generally low-to-moderate and ranged from -0.71 to 0.96. No clear pattern emerged for the mean differences between self-report and direct measures of physical activity. Trends differed by measure of physical activity employed, level of physical activity measured, and the gender of participants. Results of the risk of bias assessment indicated that 38% of the studies had lower quality scores.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that the measurement method may have a significant impact on the observed levels of physical activity. Self-report measures of physical activity were both higher and lower than directly measured levels of physical activity, which poses a problem for both reliance on self-report measures and for attempts to correct for self-report - direct measure differences. This review reveals the need for valid, accurate and reliable measures of physical activity in evaluating current and changing physical activity levels, physical activity interventions, and the relationships between physical activity and health outcomes.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of the literature search.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Scatter plot of all correlation coefficients between direct measures and self-report measures.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of percent mean differences between accelerometers and self-report measures from studies reporting combined results for males and females (excluding outliers ≥ 400%).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot of percent mean differences between accelerometers and self-report measures from studies reporting results for males only (excluding outliers ≥ 400%).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of percent mean differences between accelerometers and self-report measures from studies reporting results for females only (excluding outliers ≥ 400%).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of percent mean differences between doubly-labeled water, heart rate monitoring, pedometers, and indirect calorimetry and self-report measures from studies reporting combined results for males and females (excluding outliers ≥ 400%). Cal – calorimetry, DLW – doubly labeled water, HRM – heart rate monitor, Ped – pedometer.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of percent mean differences between doubly-labeled water, heart rate monitoring, pedometers, and indirect calorimetry and self-report measures from studies reporting results for males only (excluding outliers ≥ 400%). Cal – calorimetry, DLW – doubly labeled water, HRM – heart rate monitor, Ped – pedometer.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of percent mean differences between doubly-labeled water, heart rate monitoring, pedometers, and indirect calorimetry and self-report measures from studies reporting results for females only (excluding outliers ≥ 400%). Cal – calorimetry, DLW – doubly labeled water, HRM – heart rate monitor, Ped – pedometer.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 654 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Caspersen CJ, Powell EC, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health. 1985;100:126–131. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Katzmarzyk PT, Gledhill N, Shephard RJ. The economic burden of physical inactivity in Canada. CMAJ. 2000;163:1435–1440. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dishman RK, Washburn RA, Schoeller DA. Measurement of physical activity. QUEST. 2001;53:295–309.
    1. Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37:197–206. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.37.3.197. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ainslie PN, Reilly T, Westerterp KR. Estimating human energy expenditure: a review of techniques with particular references to doubly labelled water 38. Sports Med. 2003;33:683–698. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200333090-00004. - DOI - PubMed
Feedback