Back

Longitudinal Tracking and Construct Validity of a Single-Item Physical Activity Measure in the Womens Healthy Ageing Project

Corcoran, D.; Szoeke, C.; Apostolopoulos, V.; Feehan, J.

2026-08-31 public and global health
10.64898/2026.08.27.26361567 medRxiv
Show abstract

This study aimed to quantify the longitudinal tracking and cross-sectional construct validity of a single-item questionnaire measuring recreational physical activity frequency (RPAF) in the Womens Healthy Ageing Project. At baseline, 474 participants aged 45-55 reported RPAF from 1993 to 2014. Longitudinal tracking of the RPAF item was assessed as a consecutive-wave and baseline-referenced measure using linear weighted kappa (LWK), Spearman correlations, exact agreement and within-one-category agreement. Construct validity in the form of convergent and known-group validity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) leisure activity domains, Short Form 36 physical function (SF-36-PF) subscale, Timed Up and Go (TUG), hand grip strength (HGS) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). 474 participants provided baseline RPAF data. Pairwise longitudinal samples ranged from 176 to 459 across the study. Consecutive-wave LWK ranged from 0.38 to 0.49, and Spearman correlations ranged from 0.44 to 0.57. Exact and within-category agreement ranged from 41.4%-50.8% and 72.0%-79.0%. Baseline-referenced LWK ranged from 0.22 to 0.47, with Spearman correlations of 0.29 to 0.56. RPAF correlated with total IPAQ leisure score (rs = 0.60), IPAQ walking score (rs = 0.58), SF-36-PF (rs = 0.33) and TUG score (rs = -0.25). No significant correlation was identified between RPAF, HGS or WhTR. RPAF discriminated known groups for WHO guideline-sufficient activity, SF-36-PF, and TUG fall risk. The RPAF item demonstrated fair-to-moderate agreement in consecutive waves, with weaker baseline-referenced tracking. Cross-sectional validity was highest with total IPAQ leisure activity. The item may provide a pragmatic measure for RPAF in womens cohort studies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account 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.