Author
Listed:
- Lynda Norton
- Jessica Thomas
- Nadia Bevan
- Kevin Norton
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the levels of agreement between self-reported responses to the Adult Pre-exercise Screening System (APSS) questionnaire using online versus face-to-face (F2F) modalities. Design: Convenience sample of adults completing a pre-exercise screening questionnaire using different modalities. Methods: Adult volunteers (n = 94) were recruited to complete the APSS using both online and F2F modalities. Participants were provided a URL link to an online APSS questionnaire then followed-up the next day in a F2F interview. Objective health risk factors were also measured. Comparisons between responses were undertaken using kappa and correlation statistics to determine levels of agreement. Results: The levels of agreement between online versus F2F responses for the seven compulsory Stage 1 questions (known diseases and signs and/or symptoms of disease) were >94% (kappa = 0.644–0.794). Response comparisons for Stage 2 questions on health risk factors were also generally high (>82% agreement) but there were larger differences between reported and measured risk factors in Stage 3. Conclusions: Levels of agreement between the Stage 1 responses were substantial and support the use of this online option for pre-exercise screening. There were larger differences between self-reported and objectively measured health risk factors in Stages 2 and 3.
Suggested Citation
Lynda Norton & Jessica Thomas & Nadia Bevan & Kevin Norton, 2018.
"Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(6), pages 1-10, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0199836
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199836
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0199836. 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.