Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disagreement in physical activity assessed by accelerometer and self-report in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status

Open access
Slootmaker, Sander M, Schuit, Albertine J, Chinapaw, Marijke JM, Seidell, Jacob C, van Mechelen, Willem·2009·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-6-17
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare self-reported time (by questionnaire) and objectively measured time (by accelerometer) spent on physical activity at moderate (MPA) and vigorous intensity (VPA) in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status. Methods: In total, 236 adolescents (aged 12–18) and 301 adults (aged 22–40), completed the questionnaire and wore an accelerometer for two weeks. Results: Adolescents reported exceptionally more time spent on MPA (mean difference 596 ± 704 min/wk) and VPA (mean difference 178 ± 315 min/wk) than was assessed objectively by the accelerometer. Based on the questionnaire, high educated adolescents spent more time on MPA (205 min/wk, p = 0.002) and VPA (120 min/wk, p = 0.01) than low educated adolescents, but according to the accelerometer they spent less time on MPA (149 min/wk, p = 0.001) and VPA (47 min/wk, p = 0.001). Among adults there was moderate agreement between self-reported time and objectively measured time spent on MPA, but in general the reported time spent on MPA (mean difference 107 ± 334 min/wk) and VPA (mean difference 169 ± 250 min/wk) exceeded the time measured with the accelerometer. Overweight adults reported significantly more VPA (57 min/wk, p = 0.04) than normal weight adults, but this was not confirmed by the accelerometer data. Conclusion: We observed large differences in time spent on MPA and VPA measured by questionnaire and accelerometer in adolescents but reasonably good agreement in adults. Differences between methods varied by gender, education and weight status. This finding raises serious questions about the use of questionnaires to quantify MPA and VPA in adolescents. There is a clear need in advanced valid assessments of PA in adolescents. Trial number: ISRCTN93896459

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 · 10.1186/1479-5868-6-17

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Slootmaker, S. M., Schuit, A. J., Chinapaw, M. J., Seidell, J. C., & van Mechelen, W.
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-03-25
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
17-17
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1479-5868-6-17
OpenAlex
W2132116941
Cited by
304
References
38
FWCI
8.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disagreement in physical activity assessed by accelerometer and self-report in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1479-5868-6-17
The paper
Slootmaker, S. M., Schuit, A. J., Chinapaw, M. J., Seidell, J. C., & van Mechelen, W. (2009). Disagreement in physical activity assessed by accelerometer and self-report in subgroups of age, gender, education and weight status. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-17

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.