Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ): A Systematic Review

Xiaofen D. Keating, Ke Zhou, Xiaolu Liu, Michael Hodges, Jingwen Liu, Jianmin Guan, Ashley Phelps and Jose Castro-Piñero
Additional contact information
Xiaofen D. Keating: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Ke Zhou: Institute of Physical Education, and Bioinformatics Center, Henan University, Kaifeng 475001, China
Xiaolu Liu: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Michael Hodges: Department of Kinesiology, William Paterson University, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA
Jingwen Liu: Department of Kinesiology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA
Jianmin Guan: Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Nutrition, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA
Ashley Phelps: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
Jose Castro-Piñero: GALENO research group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 16, issue 21, 1-27

Abstract: This study aimed to systematically review previous studies on the reliability and concurrent validity of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). A systematic literature search was conducted ( n = 26) using the online EBSCOHost databases, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to September 2019. A previously developed coding sheet was used to collect the data. The Modified Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies was employed to assess risk of bias and study quality. It was found that GPAQ was primarily revalidated in adult populations in Asian and European countries. The sample size ranged from 43 to 2657 with a wide age range (i.e., 15–79 years old). Different populations yielded inconsistent results concerning the reliability and validity of the GPAQ. Short term (i.e., one- to two-week interval) and long-term (i.e., two- to three-month apart) test–retest reliability was good to very good. The concurrent validity using accelerometers, pedometers, and physical activity (PA) log was poor to fair. The GPAQ data and accelerometer/pedometer/PA log data were not compared using the same measurements in some validation studies. Studies with more rigorous research designs are needed before any conclusions concerning the concurrent validity of GPAQ can be reached.

Keywords: adult physical activity questionnaire; international perspective; revalidation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4128/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4128/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4128-:d:280539

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().