Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 15, 2025
Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed
Iris Maes1, Margo Ketels2, Delfien Van Dyck1
1Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Background:
The Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) was developed as an easy-to-use instrument for self-reported assessment of percentage sitting, standing, walking, and performing heavy labour in a workplace setting. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of all dimensions of the OSPAQ compared to accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational physical activities in a mixed sample of sedentary and physically active professions.
Methods:
Data from the Flemish Employees' Physical Activity (FEPA) study were used, including employees from the service and production sector. All participants filled in a questionnaire, underwent clinical measurements, and wore two Axivity AX3 accelerometers for at least 2 consecutive working days. Intraclass (ICC) and Spearman rho correlations (r) were analyzed to assess concurrent validity.
Results:
The sample included 401 workers (16% sedentary profession) with a mean age of 39.2 (± 11) years. Concurrent validity was good and moderate for assessing percentage of sitting (ICC = 0.84; r = 0.53), and standing (ICC = 0.64; r = 0.53), respectively. The concurrent validity for walking was weak to moderate (ICC = 0.50; r = 0.49), and weak for performing heavy labour (ICC = 0.28; r = 0.35). Stronger validity scores were found in sedentary professions for occupational sitting and standing. In physically active professions, an underestimation of self-reported sitting and standing was found, and an overestimation of self-reported walking and heavy labour. No significant self-reported over- or underestimation was found for sitting and heavy labour in sedentary professions, but an underestimation of self-reported standing and an overestimation of self-reported walking was observed.
Conclusions:
The OSPAQ has acceptable measurement properties for assessing occupational sitting and standing. Accelerometer-assessed measures of occupational walking and heavy labour are recommended, since a poor concurrent validity was found for both.
