Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire

Wareham, Nicholas J, Jakes, Rupert W, Rennie, Kirsten L, Mitchell, Jo, Hennings, Susie, Day, Nicholas E·2002·International Journal of Epidemiology
DOI 10.1093/ije/31.1.168
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important lifestyle which is often poorly assessed in epidemiological studies. The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer Study-Norfolk cohort (EPIC-Norfolk), a large population-based cohort study, has developed a comprehensive questionnaire to assess activity in different domains of life aimed at assessing total energy expenditure. We report the repeatability of this instrument and its validity against repeated objective measures of fitness and energy expenditure undertaken throughout the time frame of reference of the questionnaire. METHODS: The validity of the instrument was measured in 173 individuals randomly selected from a continuing population-based cohort study. Energy expenditure was assessed by four separate episodes of 4-day heart-rate monitoring, a method previously validated against whole body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water. Cardio-respiratory fitness was assessed by four repeated measures of sub-maximum oxygen uptake. At the end of the 12-month period, participants completed the physical activity questionnaire that assesses past-year activity at home, work and in recreation. Repeatability was assessed in a separate group of 399 randomly selected participants in EPIC who completed the physical activity questionnaire twice with a 3-month interval. RESULTS: The age- and sex-adjusted correlation between the objective measure of daytime energy expenditure and the sum of recreational and occupational reported physical activity (in MET h per week) was 0.28 (P < 0.001). The reported time spent in vigorous activity was correlated with cardio-respiratory fitness (0.16, P < 0.05) and with the proportion of time when energy expenditure was more than five times basal (0.17, P < 0.05). The repeatability of the sum of recreational and occupational reported activity was high, r = 0.73. CONCLUSIONS: The indices of physical activity derived from this questionnaire have levels of validity and repeatability comparable to other physical activity instruments that are used in large epidemiological studies and which have undergone such intense development and testing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/31.1.168

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wareham, N. J., Jakes, R. W., Rennie, K. L., Mitchell, J., Hennings, S., & Day, N. E.
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-02
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
168-174
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
DOI
10.1093/ije/31.1.168
OpenAlex
W2148399674
Cited by
435
References
3
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.