Cited by 211Physical Activity and HealthStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyNutritional Studies and Diet

Improving self-reports of active and sedentary behaviors in large epidemiologic studies

Open access
Matthews, Charles E., Moore, Steven C., George, Stephanie M., Sampson, Joshua, Bowles, Heather R.·2012·Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews

Abstract

In Brief Questionnaires that assess active and sedentary behaviors in large-scale epidemiologic studies are known to contain substantial errors. We present three options for improving measures of physical activity behaviors in large-scale epidemiologic studies, discuss the problems and prospects for each of these options, and highlight a new direction for measuring these behaviors in such studies. We present three options for improving self-report measures of physically active and sedentary behaviors in large-scale epidemiologic studies.

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 · 10.1097/jes.0b013e31825b34a0

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Five of six included studies assessed total sitting time via single-item self-report, and measurement error could have led to misclassification and attenuation of risk estimates.

    “Five of the six studies included in this meta-analysis assessed total sitting time through single-item self-report measures, and measurement error in reported sitting time could have led to misclassification and attenuation of the risk estimates observed in these studies[31,37].”

    From Daily Sitting Time and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis (2013) · cites this paper as [37]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Matthews, C. E., Moore, S. C., George, S. M., Sampson, J., & Bowles, H. R.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics (US)
Corresponding author
Matthews, Charles E.
Venue
Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews
Published
2012-07
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
118-126
ISSN
0091-6331 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117795605
Cited by
211
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (Z99 CA999999)
  • National Cancer Institute (Y99 CA999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
physical activity measurement, sedentary behavior, self-report questionnaire, measurement error, questionnaire design
MeSH terms
Cognition, Humans, Mental Recall, Exercise, Epidemiologic Studies, Sedentary Behavior, Self Report

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