Accuracy of the College Alumnus Physical Activity Questionnaire
Abstract
The validity and reproducibility of the Physical Activity Index from the College Alumnus Questionnaire (PAI-CAQ) were determined in 78 men and women (21-59 yr) with a broad range of physical activity habits. The PAI-CAQ was computed as the sum of energy expended in stair climbing, walking, and sports and recreational physical activity recalled from the past week. Data were validated against measures of cardiorespiratory fitness, body fatness, motion detection, and physical activity records. All physical activity was recorded by participants for six 48-hour periods. Each day of the week, including weekends, were represented at least twice in the physical activity records. Age-adjusted correlation coefficients between like activities on the College Alumnus Questionnaire and physical activity records ranged from 0.25 to 0.65 in men and 0.28 to 0.86 in women. Correlations between the PAI-CAQ and validation criteria that reflected total and heavy-intensity physical activities were higher (r = 0.34-0.69, p < 0.05) than for lighter-intensity physical activities and motion detection expressed in MET-min.d-1 and kcal.d-1 (r < 0.35, p > 0.05). Test-retest reproducibility was higher over 1 month (r = 0.72) than over 8 and 9 months (r = 0.34 and 0.43) (p < 0.05). Energy expended in walking and stair climbing was underestimated on the College Alumnus Questionnaire, resulting in lower PAI-CAQ scores, as compared to the physical activity records.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire has high reliability and convergent validity with several objective measures of physical activity and fitness, including maximal oxygen uptake and body mass index.
“This instrument has high reliability (33) and convergent validity with several objective measures of physical activity and fitness, including maximal oxygen uptake (34) and body mass index (BMI) (35).”
From Social jetlag, chronotype, and cardiometabolic risk (2015) · cites this paper as [33]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 295
- Authors
- Ainsworth, B. E., Leon, A. S., Richardson, M. T., Jacobs, D. R., & Paffenbarger, R. S.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- University of Alabama (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ainsworth, Barbara E.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1403-1411
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2107830557
- Cited by
- 295
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 1.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1R01-HL 37354)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
- Social Sciences › Life-span and Life-course Studies › Sports and Physical Education Studies
- Keywords
- physical activity index, physical activity measurement, questionnaire validity, reproducibility, test-retest reliability, energy expenditure, stair climbing, walking, cardiorespiratory fitness, adiposity, motion detection
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physical Fitness, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review