Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation and reliability of the Dutch language version of the Modifiable Activity Questionnaire in healthy subjects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sport Sciences for Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ) is a physical activity questionnaire shown to be both valid and reliable in French. After translation and adaptation to Dutch, the objective of the study was to see whether this questionnaire was valid and reliable in the Dutch language and thus could be used as a tool for the detection of exercise levels in a Dutch native-speaking population.

Methods

After translating and back translating the valid French version of the MAQ into Dutch, the final product of the Dutch version was tested twice in the same population (n = 101) interrupted by 1 week for the assessment of the test–retest reliability. To measure concurrent validity, the valid Dutch version of the IPAQ was filled in at the same time as the MAQ. To measure the construct validity of this assessment tool, a smaller sample size (n = 28) of the total population carried an accelerometer for 1 week.

Results

The intraclass correlation coefficient for the test–retest reliability was 0.78 (p < 0.01), suggesting a good test–retest reliability. Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient between the IPAQ and the MAQ was 0.41 (p < 0.01), suggesting a medium concurrent validity. Pearson correlation statistics showed a low, non-significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.243, p = 0.213) when measuring construct validity.

Conclusion

The present study shows that the Dutch language of the MAQ is reliable and has a medium concurrent validity. Although the construct validity is low, these results are in line with previous validation studies of physical activity questionnaires.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Helmerhorst HJ, Brage S, Warren J, Besson H, Ekelund U (2012) A systematic review of reliability and objective criterion-related validity of physical activity questionnaires. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9:103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Plasqui G, Bonomi AG, Westerterp KR (2013) Daily physical activity assessment with accelerometers: new insights and validation studies. Obes Rev 14(6):451–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pereira MA, FitzerGerald SJ, Gregg EW, Joswiak ML, Ryan WJ, Suminski RR et al (1997) A collection of Physical Activity Questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29(6 Suppl):S1–S205

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kriska AM, Knowler WC, LaPorte RE, Drash AL, Wing RR, Blair SN et al (1990) Development of questionnaire to examine relationship of physical activity and diabetes in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care 13(4):401–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zanuso S, Jimenez A, Pugliese G, Corigliano G, Balducci S (2010) Exercise for the management of type 2 diabetes: a review of the evidence. Acta Diabetol 47(1):15–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pettee Gabriel K, McClain JJ, Schmid KK, Storti KL, Ainsworth BE (2011) Reliability and convergent validity of the past-week Modifiable Activity Questionnaire. Public Health Nutr 14(3):435–442

    Google Scholar 

  7. Vuillemin A, Oppert JM, Guillemin F, Essermeant L, Fontvieille AM, Galan P et al (2000) Self-administered questionnaire compared with interview to assess past-year physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(6):1119–1124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Oyeyemi AL, Oyeyemi AY, Adegoke BO, Oyetoke FO, Aliyu HN, Aliyu SU et al (2011) The Short International Physical Activity Questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation, validation and reliability of the Hausa language version in Nigeria. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE et al (2003) International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35(8):1381–1395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santos-Lozano A, Marin PJ, Torres-Luque G, Ruiz JR, Lucia A, Garatachea N (2012) Technical variability of the GT3X accelerometer. Med Eng Phys 34(6):787–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chinapaw MJ, Slootmaker SM, Schuit AJ, van Zuidam M, van Mechelen W (2009) Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). BMC Med Res Methodol 9:58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sirard JR, Melanson EL, Li L, Freedson PS (2000) Field evaluation of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. physical activity monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(3):695–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bassett DR Jr, Ainsworth BE, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, O’Brien WL, King GA (2000) Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(Suppl 9):S471–S480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plasqui G, Westerterp KR (2007) Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: an evaluation against doubly labeled water. Obesity (Silver Spring) 15(10):2371–2379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Momenan AA, Delshad M, Sarbazi N, Rezaei Ghaleh N, Ghanbarian A, Azizi F (2012) Reliability and validity of the Modifiable Activity Questionnaire (MAQ) in an Iranian urban adult population. Arch Iran Med 15(5):279–282

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP et al (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63(5):524–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, van Poppel MN, Chinapaw MJ, van Mechelen W, de Vet HC (2010) Qualitative attributes and measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires: a checklist. Sports Med 40(7):525–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Lawrence erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

  19. Lee PH, Macfarlane DJ, Lam TH, Stewart SM (2011) Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF): a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kurtze N, Rangul V, Hustvedt BE (2008) Reliability and validity of the international physical activity questionnaire in the Nord-Trondelag health study (HUNT) population of men. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mader U, Martin BW, Schutz Y, Marti B (2006) Validity of four short physical activity questionnaires in middle-aged persons. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38(7):1255–1266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dinger MK, Behrens TK (2006) Accelerometer-determined physical activity of free-living college students. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38(4):774–779

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Deng HB, Macfarlane DJ, Thomas GN, Lao XQ, Jiang CQ, Cheng KK et al (2008) Reliability and validity of the IPAQ-Chinese: the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(2):303–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van Poppel MN, Chinapaw MJ, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB (2010) Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med 40(7):565–600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the funding through the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (OZR2096BOF). Bart Roelands is a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Fund of Flanders (FWO). We also thank Prof. Dr. J. Nijs for his constructive advice concerning the study protocol.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest for all authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Physiology, Faculty of Physical Education and Physical Therapy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Cajsa Tonoli, Bart Roelands & Romain Meeusen

  2. Université Lille Nord de France, EA4488, Activité Physique, Muscle, Santé, 59000, Lille, France

    Cajsa Tonoli, Elsa Heyman, Baquets Georges & Serge Berthoin

  3. Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO), Flanders, Belgium

    Bart Roelands

Authors
  1. Cajsa Tonoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elsa Heyman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bart Roelands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Baquets Georges
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Serge Berthoin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Romain Meeusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Romain Meeusen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tonoli, C., Heyman, E., Roelands, B. et al. Validation and reliability of the Dutch language version of the Modifiable Activity Questionnaire in healthy subjects. Sport Sci Health 9, 139–144 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-013-0160-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-013-0160-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation