Cited by 282Physical Activity and HealthObesity, Physical Activity, DietSleep and related disorders

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of sedentary behaviour measures used with children and adolescents

Open access
Lubans, D. R., Hesketh, K., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., Salmon, J., Dollman, J., Morgan, P. J., Hills, A. P. +1 more·2011·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

Summary: The aim of this review was to evaluate the reliability and validity of methods used to assess the multiple components of sedentary behaviour (i.e. screen time, sitting, not moving and existing at low energy expenditure) in children and adolescents. Twenty‐six studies met our inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Thirteen studies reported the reliability of self‐ and proxy‐report measures of sedentary behaviour and seven of these were found to have acceptable test–retest reliability. Evidence for the criterion validity of self‐ and proxy‐report measures was examined in three studies with mixed results. Seven studies examined the reliability and/or validity of direct observation and the findings were generally positive. Five studies demonstrated the utility of accelerometers to accurately classify sedentary behaviour. Self‐report measures provide reliable estimates of screen time, yet their validity remains largely untested. While accelerometers can accurately classify participants' behaviour as sedentary, they do not provide information about type of sedentary behaviour or context. Studies utilizing measures of sedentary behaviour need to more adequately report on the validity and reliability of the measures used. We recommend the use of objective measures of sedentary behaviour such as accelerometers, in conjunction with subjective measures (e.g. self‐report), to assess type and context of behaviour.

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 · 10.1111/j.1467-789x.2011.00896.x

Cites

58 of 58 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schmitz KH, Harnack L, Jacobs DR Jr, Gao S, Lytle LA, Coevering PV et al. Reliability and validity of a brief questionnaire to assess television viewing and computer use. J Sch Health 2004; 74: 370-377.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lubans, D. R., Hesketh, K., Cliff, D. P., Barnett, L. M., Salmon, J., Dollman, J., Morgan, P. J., Hills, A. P., & Hardy, L. L.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • University of South Australia (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Lubans, D. R.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-06-16
Volume
12
Issue
10
Pages
781-799
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W2127738326
Cited by
282
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart Foundation of Australia
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
sedentary behavior, children, adolescents, measurement validity, measurement reliability, screen time, sitting time, accelerometer, self-report measures, direct observation, test-retest reliability, criterion validity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Behavioral Symptoms, Child, Child Behavior, Energy Metabolism, Humans, Motor Activity, Reproducibility of Results, 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