Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 12, 2026

Physical Activity Measurement in Children Accepting Table Tennis Training
Published on: July 27, 2022
Validity and Discriminative Value of Activity Questionnaires in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes
Shaun Y M Teo1,2,3, Rachel J Lim1, Grant J Smith1
1Rio Tinto Children's Diabetes Centre, Kids Research Institute, Perth, Washington, Australia.
Introduction:
Prospective data quantifying physical activity (PA) levels in Australian youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are lacking. Structured questionnaire instruments may provide useful information, but have not been evaluated in youth with T1D. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity of three paediatric PA questionnaires in young people with T1D and their ability to differentiate those not meeting PA guidelines of 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) per day from those who do.
Methods:
Eighty youth with T1D (42 boys, 38 girls; age: 13.1 ± 2.6 years; body mass index: 20.2 ± 3.9 kg·m-2; glycosylated haemoglobin: 58.5 ± 10.1 mmol/mol; T1D duration: 5.4 ± 3.1 years) wore an Actigraph GT3x accelerometer for 7 days and on day 8 completed three self-report PA instruments: (i) the Physical Activity Questionnaire (PAQ), (ii) Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (PDPAR), and (iii) a Single-Item Physical Activity Scale (SIPAS). Validity coefficients for each instrument using accelerometry-derived MVPA minutes were determined using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were generated and optimal cut-points determined.
Results:
Mean daily MVPA minutes were 46.6 ± 25.5 min; 21/80 participants (26%) achieved an average of ≥60 MVPA minutes per day. The PAQ had the highest validity coefficient (r = 0.53; p < 0.001), followed by the single-item tool (r = 0.39; p < 0.001) and PDPAR (r = 0.09; p = 0.4). Area under the ROC curve was 0.7, 0.5, and 0.7 for the PAQ, PDPAR, and single-item tools, respectively. Optimal cut-points for sensitivity and specificity were (i) a PAQ composite score of 2.8 (66.1% and 66.7%), (ii) 75 MVPA minutes on the PDPAR (59.3% and 47.6%), and (iii) 4.5 days on the SIPAS (71.2% and 38.1%).
Conclusion:
The PAQ has moderate-to-high criterion validity and showed moderate ability to discriminate between T1D youth meeting PA guidelines from those who do not. The single-item question had low-to-moderate construct validity, while the PDPAR did not correlate with objectively measured PA levels. The feasibility of incorporating the PAQ into clinical care for youth with T1D warrants further evaluation.
More Related Videos
05:59Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
07:22Glycemic Impact on Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms on Physical, Radiographic, and Inflammatory Markers among Individuals Aged 50 and Over with Diabetes
Published on: March 7, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Diabetes Mellitus: Overview and Type I Subtype
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system mistakenly attacks and destroys the insulin-producing beta cells in the pancreas. As a result, the body is unable to produce sufficient insulin, and individuals with...
Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...