Back

Translation, adaptation, and measurement properties of the Muscle-Strengthening Exercise Questionnaire among university students in Indonesia

Wibowo, R. A.; Ashari, R. S.; Sabirin, R. M.; Merlinda, S. T. B.; Pratiwi, D. A.; Tsania, M. N.

2024-05-03 public and global health
10.1101/2024.05.01.24306693 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite the abundant evidence showing the benefits of muscle-strengthening exercise (MSE), no epidemiological tool is available for assessing MSE among Indonesian university students. This study aimed to adapt the Muscle-Strengthening Exercise Questionnaire (MSEQ) into the Indonesian context and test the validity and reliability of the MSEQ Indonesian version. MethodsTranslation and cultural adaptation, content validity studies, concurrent validity studies, and reliability studies were conducted with a total of 121 respondents. The concurrent validity study compared the results of measuring MSE frequency, intensity, duration, and volume with those of the 7-day diary and relative handgrip strength. For the reliability study, the respondents were asked to fill the MSEQ Indonesian version twice with a time interval of 7 days. ResultsModerate-to-strong correlations were observed between the results for the weekly frequency, duration, intensity, and volume of MSE and those of the 7-day diary and hand grip strength. Test-retest reliabilities were good to excellent for machine weight, holistic, and overall MSE but poor for bodyweight MSE. In assessing the target muscle group, the MSEQ Indonesian version showed good test-retest reliability for machine-weight MSE but poor-to-very good test-retest reliability for bodyweight, free weight, and holistic MSE. ConclusionsOur study showed acceptable validity and reliability of the MSEQ Indonesian version to be used for assessing MSE among university students in Indonesia. Further studies are warranted to ensure the generalizability of our findings among the adult population.

Published in BMJ Open (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.