[How to identify physical inactivity in primary care: validation of the Catalan and Spanish versions of 2 short questionnaires]
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 23, 2026
Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Anna Puig Ribera1, Oscar Peña Chimenis, Montserrat Romaguera Bosch
1Universitat de Vic, Barcelona, España; Grup d'Exercici Físic i Salut, Societat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària (CAMFiC); Institut d'Investigació d'Atenció Primària (IDIAP) Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain. annam.puig@uvic.cat
Objective:
The Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT) and the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) are valid and reliable assessment tools to identify "inactive" patients in primary care. No similar tools exist for the Spanish population. The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Catalan and Spanish versions (CBPAAT-CGPPAQ; CBPAAT-EGPPAQ) of such tools.
Design:
Validation study of the linguistic and cultural adaptation of two questionnaires into Catalan/Spanish.
Setting:
Centres of Primary Care.
Participants:
The load for administering the questionnaires was evaluated by 7 general practitioners and 44 patients. Construct validity and reliability was assessed in 105 patients (58 years old±20; 37% men) without any contraindication for physical activity (PA).
Main Variables:
After carrying out the translation and back-translation, construct validity was assessed against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ short form). Reliability was assessed administering the questionnaires again within 14 to 28 days.
Results:
The validity of the CBPAAT-EBPAAT showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 80% and 83% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was also good, correctly classifying over 86% and 88% of the cases. The validity of the CGPPAQ-EGPPAQ showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 70% and 60% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was good, correctly classifying over 82% and 72% of the cases.
Conclusions:
The CBPAAT-CGPPAQ and EBPAAT-EGPPAQ are valid instruments to identify "inactive" patients that should receive advice on PA.
