IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i23p4766-d291757.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The SED-GIH: A Single-Item Question for Assessment of Stationary Behavior—A Study of Concurrent and Convergent Validity

Author

Listed:
  • Lena V. Kallings

    (Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
    Family Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Uppsala University, 751 22 Uppsala, Sweden)

  • Sven J. G. Olsson

    (Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Örjan Ekblom

    (Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Elin Ekblom-Bak

    (Åstrand Laboratory of Work Physiology, The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH, 114 86 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Mats Börjesson

    (Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology and Institute of Food, Nutrition and Sport Science, Göteborg University, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden
    Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, 416 50 Gothenburg, Sweden)

Abstract

The unfavorable health consequences of prolonged time spent sedentary (stationary) make accurate assessment in the general population important. However, for many existing questionnaires, validity for identifying stationary time has not been shown or has shown low validity. This study aimed to assess the concurrent and convergent validity of the GIH stationary single-item question (SED-GIH). Data were obtained in 2013 and 2014 from two Swedish cohorts. A total of 711 men and women provided valid accelerometer data (Actigraph GT3X+) and were included for concurrent validity analyses. A total of 560 individuals answered three additional commonly used sedentary questions, and were included for convergent validity analysis. The SED-GIH displayed a significant correlation with total stationary time (r s = 0.48) and time in prolonged stationary time (r s = 0.44). The ROC analysis showed an AUC of 0.72 for identifying individuals with stationary time over 600 min/day. The SED-GIH correlated significantly with other previously used questions (r = 0.72–0.89). The SED-GIH single-item question showed a relatively high agreement with device-assessed stationary behavior and was able to identify individuals with high levels of stationary time. Thus, the SED-GIH may be used to assess total and prolonged stationary time. This has important implications, as simple assessment tools of this behavior are needed in public health practice and research.

Suggested Citation

  • Lena V. Kallings & Sven J. G. Olsson & Örjan Ekblom & Elin Ekblom-Bak & Mats Börjesson, 2019. "The SED-GIH: A Single-Item Question for Assessment of Stationary Behavior—A Study of Concurrent and Convergent Validity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4766-:d:291757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4766/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/23/4766/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Viktoria Wahlström & Mikael Nygren & David Olsson & Frida Bergman & Charlotte Lewis, 2022. "Validity of Three Survey Questions for Self-Assessed Sedentary Time," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-9, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:23:p:4766-:d:291757. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.