Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), Vol. 24 (issue 8), Art 221, pp. 1997 - 2004, August 2024
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051 © JPES

Original Article
Criterion validity and agreement of the brazilian version of the sedentary
behavior questionnaire against the ActiGraph accelerometer
MATEUS ASSIS BENFICA1, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO2, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA3, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO4, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS5, DIEGO GIULLIANO
DESTRO CHRISTOFARO6, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS7, DAVID OHARA8
1,2,3,4,7
Department of Health Sciences, State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, BRAZIL.
5,8
Department of Health I, State University of Southwestern Bahia, Jequié, BRAZIL
6
Department of Physical Education, Paulista State University, “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Presidente Prudente,
BRAZIL
Published online: August 31, 2024
Accepted for publication : August 15, 2024
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2024.08221
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the criterion validity of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire in college
students by comparing it with data from an accelerometer. Methods: A convenience sample of 80 university
students (73.7% female), from a public university in Brazil participated in the study. Participants wore an
ActiGraph (wGT3X-BT) accelerometer for 7 consecutive days and completed the Sedentary Behavior
Questionnaire via Google Forms. Additionally, to evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire, 20 participants
completed the questionnaire again after a two-week interval for test-retest analysis. Descriptive analysis was
performed for both continuous and categorical variables. Data distribution was evaluated using the KolmogorovSmirnov test. The paired t-test was performed to compare the reference method with the questionnaire, theintraclass correlation coefficient to assess reliability of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire, the Spearman’s
correlation coefficient to verify the relationship between methods, and the Bland-Altman´s plot to assess theagreement between the values of both methods. Results: High test-retest reliability was found for weekdays(0.78), weekends (0.89), and total values (0.90). No significant statistical correlations were found in total values
between the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire and ActiGraph for cutoff points of <100 cpm (rho = -0.033, p =0.774) and <150cpm (rho = 0.140, p = 0.216). Moreover, the questionnaire underreported sedentary behavior
when adopting a cutoff point of <100 cpm and overreported it when the cutoff point was <150 cpm.
Conclusions: The Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire showed high reliability for measuring sedentary behavior ina 14-day test-retest time period. However, a weak correlation and low agreement were found between thequestionnaire and Actigraph, with the self-report overestimating and underestimating the sedentary behavior.
Further research should be carried out to improve the correlation and agreement between the Sedentary Behavior
Questionnaire and measuring devices, reducing the frequently attributed biases.
Keywords: Sedentary Behavior, Reliability, Physical inactivity, College students.
Introduction
Sedentary behavior (SB) is a common condition characterized by a waking behavior with an energy
expenditure of less than 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) while sitting, reclining, or lying positions (inoccupational, educational, home, and transportation contexts) (Bull et al., 2020; Tremblay et al., 2017). Many
studies have reported that prolonged time spent in SB is related to several health problems, including
cardiovascular disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, obesity, mental health disorders, and increased mortality (deRezende et al., 2014; Mclaughlin et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2023), impacting the quality of life and wellbeing(Boberska et al., 2018). Additionally, SB represents a significant cost to healthcare systems. For example, in the
United Kingdom, prolonged SB between 2016 and 2017 incurred £0.7 billion (Heron et al., 2019).
In this context, the World Health Organization recommends that adults decrease sedentary time (Bull et al.,2020). However, what is observed is an increase in the time spent by adults in SB over the years. For example, across-sectional series study with 27,343 participants reported higher SB among Americans from 5.7 hours per
day in 2007–2008 to 6.4 hours per day in 2015–2016 (Du et al., 2019). Besides that, another cross-sectional
study has shown that most Brazilian adults, in a sample of 88,531, did not meet the recommendations for theleisure time of PA and the reduction in SB, with 59.5% being physically inactive (Oliveira et al., 2023). In
addition, the global pandemic of COVID-19 significantly increased SB with a reduced level of PA worldwide,
due to social distancing recommendations (Stockwell et al., 2021).
Many instruments are described in the literature to evaluate SB. They can be categorized into subjective (e.g.,questionnaires) and objective (e.g., accelerometers, inclinometers, pedometers) assessments (Castillo-Retamal &Hinckson, 2011, 2011; Hart et al., 2011; Prince et al., 2020). The accelerometer has been one of the most----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1997
Corresponding Author: DAVID OHARA, E-mail: david.ohara@uesb.edu.brMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------commonly used objective tools. It can strictly evaluate the axial and appendicular body movements, quantifying
the frequency and intensity of the PA and SB, through a measure of counts (Intille et al., 2012), with different
cutoff points being described to define sedentary time, such as <100 and <150 counts per minute (cpm)(Freedson et al., 1998; Kozey-Keadle et al., 2011). Nonetheless, the tool presents some limitations (e.g.,incapacity to detect postures, high price) (Hart et al., 2011).
These high costs of the accelerometer contribute to inequalities in its use. A scoping review reported thatwhile developed countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan are the primary users ofaccelerometers, there are relatively few studies on the African continent (Evenson et al., 2022). In this case,subjective measures can be useful to verify the SB of different populations. Despite the limitations, the selfreported questionnaires can provide more information about the behavioral context (e.g., watching TV, playing
games, working on the computer). Additionally, questionnaires have low costs and are easy to administer.
Moreover, when combined with accelerometers or other measurement devices, they can provide richer data andmore information regarding human behavior (Sattler et al., 2021). Nevertheless, validation of these instruments
is recommended.
Some questionnaires are widely used, including, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ),
Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ), and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) (Armstrong &Bull, 2006; Hallal & Victora, 2004; Rosenberg et al., 2010). The SBQ was developed to assess the total timespent on nine behaviors, separately for weekdays and weekends, and validated for the first time in the English
language in overweight adults (Rosenberg et al., 2010). Furthermore, it has been validated in other populations,such as European older adults, in English, Spanish, German, and Danish versions (Sansano-Nadal et al., 2022),
in an Arabic version (Alahmadi et al., 2023), a German version (Kalisch et al., 2022), a Turkish version (Bakar
et al., 2018) and in an Asian version (Chu et al., 2018).
Many SB and PA questionnaires have been validated for Brazilians, as previously reported by a systematic
review (Silva et al., 2020). However, knowledge of the SBQ in the Brazilian population is scarce. Therefore,
considering the disparities in accelerometer use, the cost-effectiveness and easy administration of the SBQ, thesignificant increase of SB in Brazilians, and the need for questionnaire validation in this population, this study
aimed to examine the criterion validity of the SBQ in Brazilian college students older than 18 years through theaccelerometer.
Methods
Ethical aspects
The present study uses partial data from the research entitled “Physical activity, sedentary behavior andsleep: 24-hour movement behaviors and health indicators in adults” approved by the Research Ethics Committeeof the State University of Santa Cruz (UESC) under opinion nº 4.832.080. The study protocol was carried out
following the Declaration of Helsinki. After being informed of the procedures to which they would be submitted,
all participants signed the Informed Consent Form. The study was conducted between June and December 2021,
during the COVID-19 pandemic. All social distancing, mask-wearing, and equipment sanitization protocols in
effect were strictly adhered to.
Participants
The convenience sample consisted of 80 college students, both sexes, aged 18 or older and from different
undergraduate and graduate courses (Physical Education, Biomedicine, Nursing, Medicine, Biological Sciences,
Literature, History, Administration, Mathematics, Geography) at State University of Santa Cruz, Ilhéus, Bahia,
Brazil.
Sedentary Behavior (Accelerometry)
The accelerometer ActiGraph wGT3X-BT (ActiGraph, Pensacola, FL) was used as a reference for measuring
sedentary time. Participants received the equipment in their homes or work properly sanitized. In addition, in thedelivery and collection of equipment by the members of the research evaluators team, the recommended safetymeasures were adopted, such as the use of a mask and alcohol gel. Participants also received a folder withinformation on use and a diary where they should record the days and periods of non-use of the equipment. The
equipment was worn around the waist (right hemibody), affixed by an adjustable elastic strap for 7 consecutive
days. The participants were instructed to use the equipment during waking hours, removing it only to carry out
activities in a liquid environment and during sleep. The equipment was initialized in the ActiLife v.6.8.2
software (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola) for measurements at a frequency of 30Hz in epochs of 15s, later
reintegrated in the 60s. For analysis purposes, valid data were those with measurements of at least 10 hours aday, with 4 or more days a week, with at least 1 day on the weekend. Sedentary time was established from thecutoff point of <100 counts/min (AG100) (Freedson et al., 1998) and <150 counts/min (AG150) (Kozey-Keadle
et al., 2011).
Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ)
Participants completed the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) (Rosenberg et al., 2010) on Google
Forms, in the week following the return of the accelerometers. A subgroup of 20 participants was invited to
1998---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------answer the questionnaire again 14 days after the first one, to assess the instrument's reliability analysis. The SBQ
evaluates the time spent in SB on a typical weekday and on a typical weekend day, in 9 activities, namely:“Watching TV (including videos on DVD or Digital Media”); “Playing games on the computer, video games,
tablet or cell phones”; “Sitting listening to music on the radio, CDs or other digital media”; “Sitting and talking
on the phone”; “Working with documents or on the computer (office work, emails, paying bills, etc.)”; “Sitting
reading books or magazines"; "Playing a musical instrument"; "Doing handicrafts or crafts (embroidery, crochet,knitting, tapestry, etc.)" and "Sitting and/or driving a car, bus or train".
The answers for each of the activities are: “None”; “15 min. or less"; “30 min.; “1h”; “2h”; “3h”; “4h”; “5h”
and “6h or more”.
The sedentary time in minutes was obtained from the sum of the time spent in each of the 9 activities, for a
weekday and a weekend day. The calculation of the weekly average, considering weekdays and weekend days,
was calculated from the equation: (weekday * 5 + weekend day * 2)/7
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive analysis was applied based on mean and standard deviation values for continuous variables andabsolute and relative frequency for categorical variables. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify thedata distribution. The comparison between the reference method and the SBQ was performed using the t-test for
paired samples.
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to identify the test-retest reliability of the questionnaire.
The agreement between the reference method and the SBQ was verified in the Bland-Altman plot. The
relationship between the values obtained by both methods was verified by Spearman's correlation coefficient.
Analyses were performed using the statistical package IBM SPSS v.25.0 and MedCalc v.14.8.1. For all analyses,
a significance level of 5% was adopted.
Results
A total of 80 college students answered all SBQ items and used AG for at least 4 days. Most participants
were female (73.7%), students of health courses (57.5%), and black or brown (80.1%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of college students (n=80)
Variables

ValuesSex, n (%)
Male
FemaleAge, years
Weight, kg
Height, m
BMI, kg/m2
Graduate course, n (%)
HealthOther
Race, n (%)
Black/Brown
White/Yellow

21 (26.3)
59 (73.7)
26.0 (6.2)
63.0 (13.4)
1.64 (0.08)
23.1 (4.2)
46 (57.5)
34 (42.5)
64 (80.1)
16 (19.9)

Table 2 presents test-retest ICC values of the SBQ items for weekdays, weekends, and total (week). All ICC
values showed high reliability ranging from 0.78 (weekday) to 0.90 (total).
Table 2. Sedentary time reliability estimated by SBQ.

SQB, sedentary time, min/day
Weekday
Weekend
Total

n

Test

Retest

ICC

p

20
20
20

483,0 (274.2)
449.2 (197.0)
473.3 (227.4)

526.3 (310.2)
483.0 (286.1)
513.9 (295.3)

0.899
0.784
0.908

<0.0010.001<0.001

Note. SBQ = Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire; ICC = Intraclass correlation coefficient.
Table 3 presents the Spearman's correlation coefficient for SBQ and AG for weekday, weekend, and total
time. We found no statistical correlation between the SBQ and AG average sedentary time, except for AG150 on
weekend days.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1999
JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Table 3. Sedentary time estimated by SBQ and measured by AG (n=80)
MethodTime

Spearman correlation coefficient
Rho

CI95%

p-value

SQB, sedentary time, min/day
Weekday523.6 (269.1)

-

-

-

Weekend508.3 (236.8)

-

-

-

Total

519.2 (243.8)

-

-

-

Weekday600.2 (91.1)-0.015-0.234;0.206

0.898

Weekend597.3 (105.1)

0.116-0.106;0.328

0.304

Total

599.4 (82.4)-0.033-0.250;0.189

0.774

Weekday269.5 (79.4)

0.103-0.119;0.316

0.362

Weekend254.5 (95.8)

0.267

0.050;0.460

0.017

Total

265.2 (71;9)0.140-0.085;0,349

0.216

AG100, mean (SD), min/day

AG150, mean (SD), min/day

SBQ=Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire; SD=standard deviation.
SB was underestimated by SBQ at 24.5% (76.6 min/weekday) and 24% (89.1 min/weekend) when the cutoff
point was <100cpm (AG100) (Figure 1A and 1B). On the other hand, SB was overestimated by SBQ in 51.1%(254.1 min./weekday) and 60.4% (253.8 min/weekend) when the cutoff point was <150 cpm (AG150) (Figure
1C and 1D). In general, the agreement values in the Bland-Altman plot can be considered satisfactory.

Figure 1. Bland Altman plot of the sedentary time by a weekday (2A and 2C), weekend (2B and 2D) measured
with ActiGraph AG100 (2A and 2B), AG150 (2C and 2D) and estimated by SBQ.
As shown in Figures 2A and 2B, SBQ is underestimated in 23.1% (80.2 min.) with a cutoff point <100cpm
and overestimated in 54.9% (254.0 min.) with <150 cpm cutoff point for a total time spent in sedentary time in a
week.
2000---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2. Bland Altman plot of the total sedentary time (min/week) measured with ActiGraph AG100 (2A),
AG150 (2B) and estimated by SBQ.
Discussion
We aimed to examine the criterion validity of SBQ against accelerometry (ActiGraph wGT3X-BT), in
Brazilian college students, older than 18 years. In an overview, our results showed high levels of reliability intotal (ICC = 0.90, p <0.001), weekdays (ICC = 0.89, p <0.001), and weekends (ICC = 0.78, p <0.001), in twenty
test retest participants. Additionally, no significant correlation between SBQ and ActiGraph was found, except
for the weekend in a cutoff point of <150cpm (AG150) (p = 0.017, rho = 0.267). Moreover, SB was over- or
underestimated by SBQ.
Most previous findings showed moderate-to-good/excellent reliability of the SBQ (Alahmadi et al., 2023;
Bakar et al., 2018; Bull et al., 2020; Rosenberg et al., 2010). This present study showed high levels of reliability(weekday = 0.78 to total = 0.90). Considering the effect of SBQ application mode on response, some studies
reported a face-to-face interview, as in the article of Alahmadi et al. (2023), while some reported a selfadministered response (Rosenberg et al., 2010), as in our study. Although the interview is considered the gold
standard mode (Leeuw et al., 2008), the study of Chu et al. (2018) detected moderate-to-good reliability in bothself- and interview administration.
When regarding test-retest time, some protocols performed a one-week interval (Alahmadi et al., 2023; Bakar
et al., 2018; Chu et al., 2018), in counterpoint with our study that used a two-week interval to assess thereliability of SBQ. Note that the better time interval in test-retest reliability depends on the measured construct,target population, and the stability of the instrument, even so, the 2-week interval is the most frequently
recommended (Streiner et al., 2014). This question is important, as an insufficient period might allow
participants to recall their initial answers (Frost et al., 2007). Furthermore, we considered the original study of
the reliability and validity of the questionnaire (Rosenberg et al., 2010).
The weak correlation found in our study (rho= -0.015, p= 0.898) was similarly reported in preceding articles(Kalisch et al., 2022; Kastelic & Šarabon, 2019; Rosenberg et al., 2010; Sansano-Nadal et al., 2022). The studyof Sansano-Nadal et al. (2022) found a weak positive correlation between SBQ and activPAL/Axivity, except forthe moderate correlation in the Danish version. In addition, Kalisch et al. (2022) did not find significant
correlations between the questionnaire and data from the accelerometer in both subgroups assessed in theGerman population (rho ≤ 0.281, p ≥ 0.174). Besides, a low correlation for males was reported in the primarystudy of SBQ (Rosenberg et al., 2010).
The nature of the instruments can partially explain this weak correlation between the SBQ and theaccelerometer. While the accelerometer assesses sitting and lying behaviors, the SBQ specifically assesses sitting
time in 4 of 9 context-specific behaviors (Sansano-Nadal et al., 2022). Furthermore, SBQ did not consider, forexample, that “watching TV”, “playing games” or “reading books” items are also possible during other activities(eg., transportation, breaks, waiting times, meals, etc) (Kalisch et al., 2022). Another factor that probably
influenced this weak correlation in our study was the non-adaptation of some SBQ items for this specificpopulation. However, a weak correlation was also described by Kalisch et al. (2022), where adaptations weremade (ie., “doing paperwork or computer work” to “handwriting”).
This weak correlation was also reported to other objective measures, as in the Spanish version of SBQ for
patients with fibromyalgia against the SenseWear Pro3 Armband (SWA) (rho -0.06 to -0.03) (MunguiaIzquierdo et al., 2013). The opposite example is that when the SBQ is compared with the International Physical
Activity Questionnaire - Short Form (IPAQ-SF), a high correlation was found between both, in most of the itemsin the study of Alahmadi et al. (2023). Moreover, the study of Bakar et al. (2018) also used the IPAQ-SF tovalidate the SBQ for the Turkish population, in contrast with our study which used a device. In both studies, thelack of an accelerometer to measure PA or physical inactivity may have influenced the results, as reported by theauthors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2001
JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Regarding the agreement between the accelerometer and SBQ, two cutoff points with a threshold of 100cpm
and 150cpm were considered given the remaining uncertainty in the definition of sedentary time. Although
Actigraph studies tend to use a cut-point of <100cpm, there is short evidence of the validity of this cutoff point
for adults (Clarke-Cornwell et al., 2016). Additionally, Kozey-Keadle et al. (2011), suggested that the <150cpm
may be more appropriate to define SB in this population. Furthermore, some SBQ validation articles used a<100cpm (Rosenberg et al., 2010) or a <150cpm (Chu et al., 2018; Kastelic & Šarabon, 2019) to define
sedentary time. Chu et al. (2018) also considered the thresholds of 100cpm and 200cpm, but only presented<150cpm as the main findings.
Therefore, our results showed an underestimation of the SB by SBQ when the cutoff point was <100cpm(AG100) (76.6 min/weekday) in the Bland Altman plot and were similarly found in another study with 801
European adults (72.90 mins/day) using activePAL3c and Axivity AX3 devices (Sansano-Nadal et al., 2022).
The Slovenian version of SBQ also underestimated the SB (on average −181 min/day) compared to activPAL(Kastelic & Šarabon, 2019). But when the cutoff point was <150cpm (AG150) our results were in concordancewith Kalisch et al. (2022), which showed an overestimation in SB by SBQ, using the ActiGraph wGT3X-BT
device. Thus, higher cutoff points are related to overreported results.
This self-reported bias concerning SB questionnaires is present in other studies. A meta-analysis showed anunderestimation of SB by IPAQ-SF (Mean difference = -161.67 min/day) and GPAQ (Mean difference = 219.85 min/day) against the accelerometer (Evenson et al., 2022). Strengthening this statement, anothersystematic review with meta-analysis showed that self-report underestimated by ~1.74 hours/day the sedentary
time compared to device measures (Prince et al., 2020). In addition, a very recent cross-sectional study with
23,993 Norwegian adults reported that 61% of them overreported or underestimated their sitting time of morethan 120 minutes in a day (Kongsvold et al., 2023).
Reporting errors seems a common consequence of self-reports since sedentary individuals may be unaware of
their PA or SB levels (Ronda et al., 2001). Therefore, it is essential to understand the limitations ofquestionnaires, i.e., recall and social desirability bias, specific population and culture needs, and low validity toincidental or lifestyle PA assessments. Nonetheless, the measure devices also have limitations (e.g., they cannot
account for all activities) (Strath et al., 2013). Thus, validation of both constructs is recommended before theiruse in epidemiological studies.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to validate the SBQ against the accelerometer in Brazilian college
students. However, there are some limitations in this study. First, self-reported bias is commonly present inquestionnaires, surveys, or interviews, particularly recall and social desirability bias. Second, the conveniencesample probably partially caused the sex (female = 73.7%) and race (black or brown = 80.1%) differences. These
questions limit the generalizability of our results.
As strengths of the present study, we consider the optimal scenario for PA and SB research corresponds tothe use of both objective and subjective measures. The combined strengths of these methodologies can promote a
holistic image of PA and SB (Sattler et al., 2021). However, considering the inequalities in the use ofaccelerometers, especially for low-income countries (Evenson et al., 2022), questionnaires such as the SBQ
could help understand the 24-hour movement behaviors in different populations. Thus, given the lack ofevidence related to SBQ, further research should be conducted to improve the construct and reduce biases.
As practical applications of the present study, we emphasize that the SBQ can be used with caution toestimate the SB of university students, mainly where more accurate methods such as accelerometry are notavailable. Such procedures are encouraged mainly on a large scale and in developing countries such as Brazil,
where this tool (accelerometer) is less available when compared to North American and European countries, forexample.
Conclusions
The present study showed that SBQ is highly reliable but weakly correlated with the accelerometer inBrazilian college students, similar to the previous SBQ validation articles. The weak correlation may be
explained by the differences found between the two measures, particularly the limitation of the SBQ in
accurately capturing SB. Additionally, SBQ underreported SB when the cutoff point was less than 100 cpm,
while it overreported SB when the cutoff point was less than 150 cpm.
The results suggest that although the SBQ offers convenience and is useful in certain contexts, it still faces
challenges in accurately assessing these behaviors, especially when compared to the accelerometer. Therefore,
future research should focus on validating the SBQ in different populations with more representative samples.
This will help improve the correlation and agreement between the objective measures and SBQ, and reduce thebiases often associated with self-reports. In the meantime, we recommend that measurement devices continue tobe the preferred instruments for assessing sedentary behavior and physical activity until these improvements areachieved.
Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
2002---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------References
Alahmadi, M. A., Almasoud, K. H., Aljahani, A. H., Alzaman, N. S., Nozha, O. M. A., Alahmadi, O. M.,
Jalloun, R. A., Alfadhli, E. M., Alahmadi, J. M., Zuair, A. A., Alzahrani, N. S., Alahmdi, A. A.,
Alghamdi, M. A., Zoudji, B., Aldayel, A. A., & Al-Daghri, N. M. (2023). Validity and reliability of the
Arabic sedentary behavior questionnaire among university students aged between 18–30 years old.
BMC Public Health, 23(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15030-1
Armstrong, T., & Bull, F. (2006). Development of the World Health Organization Global Physical Activity
Questionnaire (GPAQ). Journal of Public Health, 14(2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-006-00
Bakar, Y., Tugral, A., Ozel, A., Altuntas, Y. D., & Yakut, Y. (2018). Reliability and Validity of Sedentary
Behavior Questionnaire in Turkish Population: Evaluation of Psychometric Properties. Middle East
Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 5(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh.63576
Boberska, M., Szczuka, Z., Kruk, M., Knoll, N., Keller, J., Hohl, D. H., & Luszczynska, A. (2018). Sedentary
behaviours and health-related quality of life. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychology
Review, 12(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2017.1396191
Bull, F. C., Al-Ansari, S. S., Biddle, S., Borodulin, K., Buman, M. P., Cardon, G., Carty, C., Chaput, J.-P.,
Chastin, S., Chou, R., Dempsey, P. C., DiPietro, L., Ekelund, U., Firth, J., Friedenreich, C. M., Garcia,
L., Gichu, M., Jago, R., Katzmarzyk, P. T., … Willumsen, J. F. (2020). World Health Organization
2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
54(24), 1451–1462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
Castillo-Retamal, M., & Hinckson, E. A. (2011). Measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour at work:
A review. Work, 40(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2011-1246
Chu, A. H. Y., Ng, S. H. X., Koh, D., & Müller-Riemenschneider, F. (2018). Domain-Specific Adult Sedentary
Behaviour Questionnaire (ASBQ) and the GPAQ Single-Item Question: A Reliability and Validity
Study in an Asian Population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,15(4), 739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15040739
Clarke-Cornwell, A. M., Farragher, T. M., Cook, P. A., & Granat, M. H. (2016). Empirically derived cut-points
for sedentary behaviour: Are we sitting differently? Physiological Measurement, 37(10), 1669–1685.
https://doi.org/10.1088/0967-3334/37/10/1669
de Rezende, L. F. M., Rodrigues Lopes, M., Rey-López, J. P., Matsudo, V. K. R., & Luiz, O. do C. (2014).
Sedentary Behavior and Health Outcomes: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. PLoS ONE, 9(8),e105620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105620
Du, Y., Liu, B., Sun, Y., Snetselaar, L. G., Wallace, R. B., & Bao, W. (2019). Trends in Adherence to the
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for Aerobic Activity and Time Spent on Sedentary
Behavior Among US Adults, 2007 to 2016. JAMA Network Open, 2(7), e197597.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.7597
Evenson, K. R., Scherer, E., Peter, K. M., Cuthbertson, C. C., & Eckman, S. (2022). Historical development ofaccelerometry measures and methods for physical activity and sedentary behavior research worldwide:
A scoping review of observational studies of adults. PLOS ONE, 17(11), e0276890.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276890
Freedson, P. S., Melanson, E., & Sirard, J. (1998). Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc.
Accelerometer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 30(5), 777.
Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., Hays, R. D., & Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported Outcomes
Consensus Meeting Group; (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patientreported outcome measures? Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for
Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10 Suppl 2, S94–S105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15244733.2007.00272.x
Hallal, P. C., & Victora, C. G. (2004). RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUESTIONNAIRE (IPAQ). Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(3),556. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000117161.66394.07
Hart, T. L., Ainsworth, B. E., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2011). Objective and Subjective Measures of Sedentary
Behavior and Physical Activity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(3), 449.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ef5a93
Heron, L., O’Neill, C., McAneney, H., Kee, F., & Tully, M. A. (2019). Direct healthcare costs of sedentary
behaviour in the UK. J Epidemiol Community Health, 73(7), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech2018-211758
Intille, S. S., Lester, J., Sallis, J. F., & Duncan, G. (2012). NEW HORIZONS IN SENSOR DEVELOPMENT.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 44(1 Suppl 1), S24–S31.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399c7d
Kalisch, T., Theil, C., Gosheger, G., Schwarze, J., Voss, K., Schoenhals, I., & Moellenbeck, B. (2022).
Validation of a Modified Version of the German Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire. Healthcare, 10(5),----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2003
JPES ® www.efsupit.roMATEUS ASSIS BENFICA, MAYARA LOPES DE JESUS ARAÚJO, LOUIZE CARVALHO MOREIRASILVA, JENIFFER DE ANDRADE BRITO, LUCIANA ARAÚJO DOS REIS, DIEGO GIULLIANO DESTROCHRISTOFARO, RANIERE SOUZA DE JESUS, DAVID OHARA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------807. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10050807
Kastelic, K., & Šarabon, N. (2019). Comparison of Self-Reported Sedentary Time on Weekdays with an
Objective Measure (activPAL). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 23(3), 227–
236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2019.1603153
Kongsvold, A., Flaaten, M., Logacjov, A., Skarpsno, E. S., Bach, K., Nilsen, T. I. L., & Mork, P. J. (2023). Can
the bias of self-reported sitting time be corrected? A statistical model validation study based on datafrom 23 993 adults in the Norwegian HUNT study. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity, 20, 139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-023-01541-y
Kozey-Keadle, S., Libertine, A., Lyden, K., Staudenmayer, J., & Freedson, P. S. (2011). Validation of Wearable
Monitors for Assessing Sedentary Behavior. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(8), 1561.
https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31820ce174
Leeuw, E. D. D., Hox, J., & Dillman, D. (2008). International Handbook of Survey Methodology (1st edition).
Routledge.
Mclaughlin, M., Atkin, A. J., Starr, L., Hall, A., Wolfenden, L., Sutherland, R., Wiggers, J., Ramirez, A., Hallal,
P., Pratt, M., Lynch, B. M., & Wijndaele, K. (2020). Worldwide surveillance of self-reported sitting
time: A scoping review. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17,111. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-01008-4
Munguia-Izquierdo, D., Segura-Jiménez, V., Camiletti-Moirón, D., Alvarez-Gallardo, I. C., Estévez-López, F.,
Romero, A., Chillon, P., Carbonell-Baeza, A., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., & Delgado-Fernández, M.
(2013). Spanish adaptation and psychometric properties of the Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire forfibromyalgia patients: The al-Andalus study. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 31(6 Suppl 79),
Oliveira, A. B. de, Katzmarzyk, P. T., Dantas, W. S., Benseñor, I. J. M., Goulart, A. de C., & Ekelund, U.
(2023). Profile of leisure-time physical activity and sedentary behavior in adults in Brazil: A nationwide
survey, 2019. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde, 32, e2023168. https://doi.org/10.1590/S223796222023000200016
Prince, S. A., Cardilli, L., Reed, J. L., Saunders, T. J., Kite, C., Douillette, K., Fournier, K., & Buckley, J. P.
(2020). A comparison of self-reported and device measured sedentary behaviour in adults: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 17,
31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-020-00938-3
Ronda, G., Van Assema, P., & Brug, J. (2001). Stages of change, psychological factors and awareness ofphysical activity levels in the Netherlands. Health Promotion International, 16(4), 305–314.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.4.305
Rosenberg, D. E., Norman, G. J., Wagner, N., Patrick, K., Calfas, K. J., & Sallis, J. F. (2010). Reliability andValidity of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ) for Adults. Journal of Physical Activity and
Health, 7(6), 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.7.6.697
Sattler, M. C., Ainsworth, B. E., Andersen, L. B., Foster, C., Hagströmer, M., Jaunig, J., Kelly, P., Kohl, H. W.,
Matthews, C. E., Oja, P., Prince, S. A., & van Poppel, M. N. M. (2021). Physical Activity Self-Reports:
Past or Future? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 55(16), 889–890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports2020-103595
Silva, F. G., Oliveira, C. B., Hisamatsu, T. M., Negrão Filho, R. F., Rodrigues, C. R. D., Franco, M. R., & Pinto,
R. Z. (2020). Critical evaluation of physical activity questionnaires translated to Brazilian-Portuguese:
A systematic review on cross-cultural adaptation and measurements properties. Brazilian Journal of
Physical Therapy, 24(3), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.04.002
Stockwell, S., Trott, M., Tully, M., Shin, J., Barnett, Y., Butler, L., McDermott, D., Schuch, F., & Smith, L.
(2021). Changes in physical activity and sedentary behaviours from before to during the COVID-19
pandemic lockdown: A systematic review. BMJ Open Sport — Exercise Medicine, 7(1), e000960.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000960
Strath, S. J., Kaminsky, L. A., Ainsworth, B. E., Ekelund, U., Freedson, P. S., Gary, R. A., Richardson, C. R.,
Smith, D. T., & Swartz, A. M. (2013). Guide to the Assessment of Physical Activity: Clinical andResearch Applications. Circulation, 128(20), 2259–2279.
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2014). Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to theirdevelopment and use. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001
Tremblay, M. S., Aubert, S., Barnes, J. D., Saunders, T. J., Carson, V., Latimer-Cheung, A. E., Chastin, S. F. M.,
Altenburg, T. M., & Chinapaw, M. J. M. (2017). Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) –Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. The International Journal of Behavioral
Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8
Wu, J., Fu, Y., Chen, D., Zhang, H., Xue, E., Shao, J., Tang, L., Zhao, B., Lai, C., & Ye, Z. (2023). Sedentary
behavior patterns and the risk of non-communicable diseases and all-cause mortality: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 146, 104563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2023.104563
2004---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------JPES ® www.efsupit.ro