Background

Questionnaires provide valuable information about physical activity (PA) behaviors in older adults. Until now, no firm recommendations for the most qualified questionnaires for older adults have been provided.

Objectives

This review is an update of a previous systematic review, published in 2010, and aims to summarize, appraise and compare the measurement properties of all available self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in older adults.

Methods

We included the articles evaluated in the previous review and conducted a new search in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus from September 2008 to December 2019, using the following inclusion criteria (1) the purpose of the study was to evaluate at least one measurement property (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (2) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (3) the questionnaire covered at least one domain of PA; (4) the study was performed in the general, healthy population of older adults; (5) the mean age of the study population was > 55 years; and (6) the article was published in English. Based on the Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires (QAPAQ) checklist, we evaluated the quality and results of the studies. The content validity of all included questionnaires was also evaluated using the reviewers’ rating. The quality of the body of evidence was evaluated for the overall construct of each questionnaire (e.g., total PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and walking using a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

In total, 56 articles on 40 different questionnaires (14 from the previous review and 26 from the update) were included. Reliability was assessed for 22, measurement error for four and hypotheses testing for construct validity for 38 different questionnaires. Evidence for responsiveness was available for one questionnaire. For many questionnaires, only one measurement property was assessed in only a single study. Sufficient content validity was considered for 22 questionnaires. All questionnaires displayed large measurement errors. Only versions of two questionnaires showed both sufficient reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity, namely the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; English version, Turkish version) for the assessment of total PA, and the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q; English version) for the assessment of MVPA. The quality of evidence for these results ranged from very low to high.

Conclusions

Until more high-quality evidence is available, we recommend the PASE for measuring total PA and the PASB-Q for measuring MVPA in older adults. However, they are not equally qualified among different languages. Future studies on the most promising questionnaires should cover all relevant measurement properties. We recommend using and improving existing PA questionnaires—instead of developing new ones—and considering the strengths and weaknesses of each PA measurement instrument for a particular purpose.

中文翻译：

---

老年人体育活动问卷的测量属性的最新证据：更新的系统评价。

背景

问卷调查提供了有关老年人身体活动（PA）行为的有价值的信息。到目前为止，还没有针对老年人最合格的问卷提供坚定的建议。

目标

该评价是对先前于2010年发布的系统评价的更新，旨在总结，评估和比较所有可用的自我评估的老年人PA评估问卷的测量特性。

方法

我们纳入了先前评论中评估的文章，并从2008年9月至2019年12月在PubMed，Embase和SPORTDiscus中进行了新的搜索，使用以下纳入标准（1）的目的是评估至少一个测量属性（自我调查问卷的可靠性，测量误差，结构效度的假设检验，响应能力）；（2）旨在测量PA的问卷；（3）问卷至少涵盖了PA的一个领域；（4）这项研究是针对一般健康的老年人群体进行的；（5）研究人群的平均年龄> 55岁；（6）该文章以英文发表。根据体育活动问卷的质量评估（QAPAQ）清单，我们评估了研究的质量和结果。还使用审阅者的评分对所有纳入问卷的内容有效性进行了评估。使用改进的建议，评估，发展和评估等级（GRADE），对每个问卷的整体结构（例如总PA），中度至剧烈体力活动（MVPA）和步行进行评估，以评估证据的质量）方法。

结果

总共纳入了40份不同问卷中的56篇文章（上一次审阅中有14篇，更新中有26篇）。评估了22个信度，四个信度的测量误差以及38个不同问卷的结构效度的假设检验。一份调查问卷可提供响应的证据。对于许多问卷，仅在一项研究中仅评估了一种测量属性。考虑了22个问卷的足够内容有效性。所有问卷均显示较大的测量误差。只有两个问卷的版本显示出足够的信度和假设检验，以验证结构的有效性，即用于评估总PA的老年人身体活动量表（PASE；英语版本，土耳其语版本）以及身体活动和久坐行为问卷（PASB） -Q; 英文版）用于评估MVPA。这些结果的证据质量从非常低到非常高。

结论

在获得更多高质量证据之前，我们建议使用PASE来测量老年人的总PA，使用PASB-Q来测量老年人的MVPA。但是，它们在不同语言之间的资格并不相同。对最有希望的问卷的未来研究应涵盖所有相关的测量属性。我们建议使用和改进现有的PA问卷（而不是开发新的PA问卷），并考虑每种PA测量工具针对特定目的的优点和缺点。