Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/53517
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPedersen, Scott Jen
dc.contributor.authorKitic, Cecilia Men
dc.contributor.authorBird, Marie-Louiseen
dc.contributor.authorMainsbridge, Casey Pen
dc.contributor.authorCooley, P Deanen
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-20T01:26:21Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-20T01:26:21Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Public Health, v.16, p. 1-6en
dc.identifier.issn1471-2458en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/53517-
dc.description.abstract<p><b>Background:</b> With the advent of workplace health and wellbeing programs designed to address prolonged occupational sitting, tools to measure behaviour change within this environment should derive from empirical evidence. In this study we measured aspects of validity and reliability for the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire that asks employees to recount the percentage of work time they spend in the seated, standing, and walking postures during a typical workday.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Three separate cohort samples (<i>N</i> = 236) were drawn from a population of government desk-based employees across several departmental agencies. These volunteers were part of a larger state-wide intervention study. Workplace sitting and physical activity behaviour was measured both subjectively against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, and objectively against ActivPal accelerometers before the intervention began. Criterion validity and concurrent validity for each of the three posture categories were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients, and a bias comparison with 95 % limits of agreement. Test-retest reliability of the survey was reported with intraclass correlation coefficients.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Criterion validity for this survey was strong for sitting and standing estimates, but weak for walking. Participants significantly overestimated the amount of walking they did at work. Concurrent validity was moderate for sitting and standing, but low for walking. Test-retest reliability of this survey proved to be questionable for our sample.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Based on our findings we must caution occupational health and safety professionals about the use of employee self-report data to estimate workplace physical activity. While the survey produced accurate measurements for time spent sitting at work it was more difficult for employees to estimate their workplace physical activity.</p>en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltden
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Public Healthen
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.titleIs self-reporting workplace activity worthwhile? Validity and reliability of occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire in desk-based workersen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12889-016-3537-4en
dc.identifier.pmid27542603en
dcterms.accessRightsUNE Greenen
local.contributor.firstnameScott Jen
local.contributor.firstnameCecilia Men
local.contributor.firstnameMarie-Louiseen
local.contributor.firstnameCasey Pen
local.contributor.firstnameP Deanen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Educationen
local.profile.emailcmainsbr@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryC1en
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen
local.identifier.runningnumber836en
local.format.startpage1en
local.format.endpage6en
local.peerreviewedYesen
local.identifier.volume16en
local.access.fulltextYesen
local.contributor.lastnamePedersenen
local.contributor.lastnameKiticen
local.contributor.lastnameBirden
local.contributor.lastnameMainsbridgeen
local.contributor.lastnameCooleyen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:cmainsbren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:1959.11/53517en
local.date.onlineversion2016-08-19-
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleIs self-reporting workplace activity worthwhile? Validity and reliability of occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire in desk-based workersen
local.relation.fundingsourcenoteTasmanian Government Healthy@Work grant schemeen
local.output.categorydescriptionC1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journalen
local.search.authorPedersen, Scott Jen
local.search.authorKitic, Cecilia Men
local.search.authorBird, Marie-Louiseen
local.search.authorMainsbridge, Casey Pen
local.search.authorCooley, P Deanen
local.open.fileurlhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/10e07544-26f9-43a0-b2d3-e82d806be495en
local.uneassociationNoen
local.atsiresearchNoen
local.sensitive.culturalNoen
local.year.available2016en
local.year.published2016en
local.fileurl.openhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/10e07544-26f9-43a0-b2d3-e82d806be495en
local.fileurl.openpublishedhttps://rune.une.edu.au/web/retrieve/10e07544-26f9-43a0-b2d3-e82d806be495en
local.subject.for2020390303 Higher educationen
local.subject.for2020420312 Implementation science and evaluationen
local.subject.for2020420310 Health surveillanceen
local.subject.seo2020200507 Occupational healthen
local.subject.seo2020200203 Health education and promotionen
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Education
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/IsSelfReportingMainsbridge2016JournalArticle.pdfPublished version584.84 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

32
checked on Jan 4, 2025

Page view(s)

368
checked on Mar 8, 2023

Download(s)

4
checked on Mar 8, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons