Criterion Validity and Test-Retest Reliability of a Modified Version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) in Kidney Transplant Recipients.
Dario Kohlbrenner, Seraina von Moos, Gabriela Schmid-Mohler
PMID 36189067WHAT IT FOUND
A modified questionnaire improved tracking of moderate-to-vigorous activity in kidney transplant recipients compared to the standard version, but accuracy remained low.
It overestimated vigorous activity at follow-up and underestimated total weekly activity, so it cannot replace accelerometers for precise monitoring.
Key findings
01The modified questionnaire showed only low correlation with accelerometry for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes.
02Total physical activity per week was significantly underestimated by the modified questionnaire compared to accelerometer records.
03Test-retest reliability for vigorous activity minutes showed significant overestimation at the second visit.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The questionnaire asked about a 'usual week' while accelerometers recorded specific seven-day periods, which may not represent a usual week and could underestimate validity. Changes in patient status between visits might have affected activity levels, confounding test-retest reliability. The accelerometer used lacks validation for the specific intensity thresholds applied in this study. Validity remained mostly in the low spectrum despite improvements over the original questionnaire.
Declared interests
The authors declare no commercial or financial conflicts of interest. The study was registered as part of a larger RCT on self-management programs.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the improved correlation for moderate-to-vigorous activity as evidence that the questionnaire is accurate. The correlation was only low (r=0.33), and the tool significantly underestimated total activity and overestimated vigorous activity at follow-up, meaning it is not a valid substitute for objective measurement.