Publicatie
Publication date
Instruments measuring physical activity in individuals who use a wheelchair: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Lankhorst, K., Oerbekke, M., Berg-Emons, R. van den, Takken, T., Groot, J. de. Instruments measuring physical activity in individuals who use a wheelchair: a systematic review of measurement properties. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: 2020, 101(3), p. 535-552.
Download the PDF
Objective
To systematically review the evidence evaluating validity or reliability of self-reported and device-based instruments, to measure physical activity (PA) in individuals who use a wheelchair, and to make recommendations for the selection of PA outcomes tools.
Data sources
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were systematically searched.
Study selection
Studies reporting measurement properties of instruments to assess PA in individuals who use a wheelchair.
Data extraction
The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The measurement properties of instruments assessing PA were examined.
Data synthesis
The search yielded 5341 records, 61 were considered relevant, 21 articles were included. A best evidence synthesis was performed on 9 studies including 4 self-reported instruments and 13 studies including 8 device-based instruments. One study evaluated both self-reported and device-based instruments. The overall methodological quality of all studies ranged from poor to excellent. Variable levels of evidence were found for both the validity and reliability for self-reported instruments and for criterion validity for device-based instruments.
Conclusions
The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Disabilities (PASIPD) and The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI) seem the most promising self-reported instruments for measuring the intensity of PA. Device-based instruments that can be used for measuring both the intensity and type of PA are the GENEActiv, Actigraph GT3X+, Actiheart, or the Physical Activity Monitor System (PAMS), showing moderate evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity. For measuring the type of PA, the PAMS and VitaMove are suitable, showing both good evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity.
To systematically review the evidence evaluating validity or reliability of self-reported and device-based instruments, to measure physical activity (PA) in individuals who use a wheelchair, and to make recommendations for the selection of PA outcomes tools.
Data sources
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were systematically searched.
Study selection
Studies reporting measurement properties of instruments to assess PA in individuals who use a wheelchair.
Data extraction
The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The measurement properties of instruments assessing PA were examined.
Data synthesis
The search yielded 5341 records, 61 were considered relevant, 21 articles were included. A best evidence synthesis was performed on 9 studies including 4 self-reported instruments and 13 studies including 8 device-based instruments. One study evaluated both self-reported and device-based instruments. The overall methodological quality of all studies ranged from poor to excellent. Variable levels of evidence were found for both the validity and reliability for self-reported instruments and for criterion validity for device-based instruments.
Conclusions
The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Disabilities (PASIPD) and The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI) seem the most promising self-reported instruments for measuring the intensity of PA. Device-based instruments that can be used for measuring both the intensity and type of PA are the GENEActiv, Actigraph GT3X+, Actiheart, or the Physical Activity Monitor System (PAMS), showing moderate evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity. For measuring the type of PA, the PAMS and VitaMove are suitable, showing both good evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity.
Objective
To systematically review the evidence evaluating validity or reliability of self-reported and device-based instruments, to measure physical activity (PA) in individuals who use a wheelchair, and to make recommendations for the selection of PA outcomes tools.
Data sources
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were systematically searched.
Study selection
Studies reporting measurement properties of instruments to assess PA in individuals who use a wheelchair.
Data extraction
The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The measurement properties of instruments assessing PA were examined.
Data synthesis
The search yielded 5341 records, 61 were considered relevant, 21 articles were included. A best evidence synthesis was performed on 9 studies including 4 self-reported instruments and 13 studies including 8 device-based instruments. One study evaluated both self-reported and device-based instruments. The overall methodological quality of all studies ranged from poor to excellent. Variable levels of evidence were found for both the validity and reliability for self-reported instruments and for criterion validity for device-based instruments.
Conclusions
The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Disabilities (PASIPD) and The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI) seem the most promising self-reported instruments for measuring the intensity of PA. Device-based instruments that can be used for measuring both the intensity and type of PA are the GENEActiv, Actigraph GT3X+, Actiheart, or the Physical Activity Monitor System (PAMS), showing moderate evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity. For measuring the type of PA, the PAMS and VitaMove are suitable, showing both good evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity.
To systematically review the evidence evaluating validity or reliability of self-reported and device-based instruments, to measure physical activity (PA) in individuals who use a wheelchair, and to make recommendations for the selection of PA outcomes tools.
Data sources
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were systematically searched.
Study selection
Studies reporting measurement properties of instruments to assess PA in individuals who use a wheelchair.
Data extraction
The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The measurement properties of instruments assessing PA were examined.
Data synthesis
The search yielded 5341 records, 61 were considered relevant, 21 articles were included. A best evidence synthesis was performed on 9 studies including 4 self-reported instruments and 13 studies including 8 device-based instruments. One study evaluated both self-reported and device-based instruments. The overall methodological quality of all studies ranged from poor to excellent. Variable levels of evidence were found for both the validity and reliability for self-reported instruments and for criterion validity for device-based instruments.
Conclusions
The Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Disabilities (PASIPD) and The Physical Activity Recall Assessment for People with Spinal Cord Injury (PARA-SCI) seem the most promising self-reported instruments for measuring the intensity of PA. Device-based instruments that can be used for measuring both the intensity and type of PA are the GENEActiv, Actigraph GT3X+, Actiheart, or the Physical Activity Monitor System (PAMS), showing moderate evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity. For measuring the type of PA, the PAMS and VitaMove are suitable, showing both good evidence for a positive rating of criterion validity.