Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T18:46:41.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with a population sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Randy Rzewnicki*
Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, B3000 Leuven, Belgium:
Yves Vanden Auweele
Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, B3000 Leuven, Belgium:
Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij
Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
*Corresponding author:: Email
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

To examine a possible problem of overreporting and to describe the degree of error with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) short telephone protocol.


Cross-sectional study, using two different physical activity (PA) self-report protocols.


Telephone interviews about PA in Belgium.


Fifty adults who had previously been interviewed with IPAQ in a national survey.


Seventy-five per cent reported less PA with the modified procedure than with the IPAQ. Twenty-three of the 50 individuals were found to have reported some amounts of PA with the IPAQ (either walking, or vigorous or moderate PA) when they should have reported none. In total, based on their revised reports of PA, 50% fewer persons met PA recommendations than was the case with IPAQ. The overreporting could not be related to types of error-prone individuals.


Overreporting of PA in population samples is a serious problem that could be reduced by implementing procedure changes without changing the IPAQ items themselves.

Research Article
Copyright © CAB International 2003


1Booth, ML. Assessment of physical activity: an international perspective. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2000; 71: 114–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Booth, M, Jones, DA, Ainsworth, BE. Methods of assessing the repeatability and validity of self-report measures of physical activity participation: a discussion paper. August 1999.Google Scholar
3Craig, CL, Russell, SJ. Reliability and validity of measures of adult physical activity patterns. In Mini-symposium: Can public health surveillance of physical activity be standardized internationally? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 1999; 31: 389.Google Scholar
4Craig, CL, Marshall, AL, Sjöström, M, Bauman, AE, Booth, ML, Ainsworth, BE, et al. . and the IPAQ Consensus Group and the IPAQ Reliability and Validity Study Group. International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): 12-country reliability and validity. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 2002; in press.Google Scholar
5Montoye, HJ, Kemper, HGC, Saris, WMH, Washburn, RA. Measuring PA and Energy Expenditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.Google Scholar
6De Backer, G, Kornitzer, M, Sobolski, J, Dramaix, M, Degre, S, de Marneffe, M, et al. Physical activity and physical fitness level of Belgian males aged 40-55 years. Cardiology 1981; 67: 110–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Taylor, HL, Jacobs, DR, Schucker, B, Knudsen, J, Leon, AS, Debacker, G. Questionnaire for the assessment of leisure time physical activities. J. Chron. Dis. 1978; 31: 741–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Edwards, AL. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research. New York: Dryden, 1957.Google Scholar
9Nunnally, JC. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
10Droomers, M, Schrijvers, CTM, van de Mheem, H, Mackenbach, JP. Educational differences in leisure time physical inactivity: a descriptive and explanatory study. Soc. Sci. Med. Health 1998; 47(11): 1665–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Falkner, KL, Trevisan, M, Zielezny, J, Freudenheim, W, Winkelstein, W, Fisher, RP. Relative validity of recall of physical activity in the distant past [abstract]. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1994; 139: S17.Google Scholar
12US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996.Google Scholar
13Jones, DA, Ainsworth, BE, Croft, JB, Macera, CA, Lloyd, EE, Yusuf, HR, et al. Moderate leisure time physical activity: who is meeting the public health recommendations? A national cross-sectional study. Arch. Fam. Med. 1998; 7: 285–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Margetts, BM, Rogers, E, Widhal, K, Remaut de Winter, A-M, Zunft, H-JF. Relationships between attitudes to health, body weight, and physical activity and level of physical activity in a nationally representative sample in the European Union. Public Health Nutr. 1999; 2(1a): 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Rzewnicki, R, De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Stahl, T, Welshman, J, Vanden Auweele, Y, Ziemainz, H, et al. . How methods affect measures of physical activity in 8 European countries: The Eupass Experience. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
16De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Sallis, J. Relative contribution of psychological determinants to the explanation of physical activity in three population-based adult samples. Prev. Med. 2002; 34: 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17SAS Institute, Inc. SAS Procedures, Version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2000.Google Scholar
18Kristiansen, CM, Harding, CM. The social desirability of preventive health behavior. Public Health Rep. 1984; 99: 384–8.Google ScholarPubMed
19Mathers, C, Vos, T, Stevenson, C. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Bull. World Health Org. 2001; 79: 1076–84.Google ScholarPubMed