IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0195424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reliability, minimal detectable change and responsiveness to change: Indicators to select the best method to measure sedentary behaviour in older adults in different study designs

Author

Listed:
  • Manon L Dontje
  • Philippa M Dall
  • Dawn A Skelton
  • Jason M R Gill
  • Sebastien F M Chastin
  • on behalf of the Seniors USP Team

Abstract

Introduction: Prolonged sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with poor health. It is unclear which SB measure is most appropriate for interventions and population surveillance to measure and interpret change in behaviour in older adults. The aims of this study: to examine the relative and absolute reliability, Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) and responsiveness to change of subjective and objective methods of measuring SB in older adults and give recommendations of use for different study designs. Methods: SB of 18 older adults (aged 71 (IQR 7) years) was assessed using a systematic set of six subjective tools, derived from the TAxonomy of Self report Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), and one objective tool (activPAL3c), over 14 days. Relative reliability (Intra Class Correlation coefficients-ICC), absolute reliability (SEM), MDC, and the relative responsiveness (Cohen’s d effect size (ES) and Guyatt’s Responsiveness coefficient (GR)) were calculated for each of the different tools and ranked for different study designs. Results: ICC ranged from 0.414 to 0.946, SEM from 36.03 to 137.01 min, MDC from 1.66 to 8.42 hours, ES from 0.017 to 0.259 and GR from 0.024 to 0.485. Objective average day per week measurement ranked as most responsive in a clinical practice setting, whereas a one day measurement ranked highest in quasi-experimental, longitudinal and controlled trial study designs. TV viewing–Previous Week Recall (PWR) ranked as most responsive subjective measure in all study designs. Conclusions: The reliability, Minimal Detectable Change and responsiveness to change of subjective and objective methods of measuring SB is context dependent. Although TV viewing-PWR is the more reliable and responsive subjective method in most situations, it may have limitations as a reliable measure of total SB. Results of this study can be used to guide choice of tools for detecting change in sedentary behaviour in older adults in the contexts of population surveillance, intervention evaluation and individual care.

Suggested Citation

  • Manon L Dontje & Philippa M Dall & Dawn A Skelton & Jason M R Gill & Sebastien F M Chastin & on behalf of the Seniors USP Team, 2018. "Reliability, minimal detectable change and responsiveness to change: Indicators to select the best method to measure sedentary behaviour in older adults in different study designs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0195424
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195424
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195424
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195424&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0195424?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0195424. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.