Validity and reliability of self-reported methods for assessment of 24-h movement behaviours: a systematic review.

Background: Time spent in sleep, sedentary behaviour (SB), and physical activity are exhaustive and mutually exclusive parts of a 24-h day that need to be considered in a combination. The aim of this study was to identify validated self-reported tools for assessment of movement behaviours across the whole 24-h day, and to review their attributes and measurement properties. Methods: The databases PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus were searched until September 2023. Inclusion criteria were: (i) published in English language, (ii) per-reviewed paper, (iii) assessment of self-reported time spent in sleep, SB, and physical activity, (iv) evaluation of measurement properties of all estimates across the full 24-h day, and (v) inclusion of adolescents, adults, or older adults. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments checklist. Results: Our search returned 2064 records. After studies selection, we included 16 articles that reported construct validity and/or test-retest reliability of 12 unique self-reported tools – eight questionnaires, three time-use recalls, and one time-use diary. Most tools enable assessment of time spent in sleep, and domain-specific SB and physical activity, and account that sum of behaviours should be 24 h. Validity (and reliability) correlation coefficients for sleep ranged between 0.22 and 0.69 (0.41 and 0.92), for SB between 0.06 and 0.57 (0.33 and 0.91), for light-intensity physical activity between 0.18 and 0.46 (0.55 and 0.94), and for moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity between 0.38 and 0.56 (0.59 and 0.94). The quality of included studies being mostly fair-to-good. Conclusions: This review found that only a limited number of validated self-reported tools for assessment of 24-h movement behaviours are currently available. Validity and reliability of most tools are generally adequate to be used in epidemiological studies and population surveillance, while little is known about adequacy for individual level assessments and responsiveness to behavioural change. To further support research, policy, and practice, there is a need to develop new tools that resonate with the emerging 24-h movement paradigm and to evaluate measurement properties by using compositional data analysis. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022330868. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]