Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A study examines the agreement between self-reported and field-assessed physical activity measures in university students, suggesting complementary interpretations are needed.
Background/Objectives: Self-reported physical activity is widely used in non-communicable disease (NCD) surveillance, yet its individual-level agreement with field-based markers of cardiorespiratory fitness remains poorly characterised in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) populations. This study examined the association, agreement, and directional discordance between self-reported physical activity (IPAQ Short Form, IPAQ-SF) and field-assessed functional capacity (Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, ISWT) among university students in Kuwait. Methods: In 389 students (76.3% female; mean age 20.2 ± 2.3 years) in Kuwait, IPAQ-SF activity was classified as low, moderate, or high and ISWT distance into sample-derived tertiles. Spearman correlations, Kruskal–Wallis tests with Dunn pairwise comparisons, cross-tabulation, and unweighted, linear-weighted, and quadratic-weighted Cohen’s kappa were used. Results: IPAQ activity showed a weak but significant correlation with ISWT distance (ρ = 0.209, p < 0.001). ISWT performance did not differ between the low- and moderate-IPAQ categories (Bonferroni-adjusted Dunn p = 0.162). Agreement was slight across all kappa estimates (unweighted κ = 0.083; linear-weighted κ = 0.137; quadratic-weighted κ = 0.192), with matching category assignment in only 38.8% of participants; lower-than-tertile IPAQ classification occurred in 42.9% and higher-than-tertile in 18.3%. Directional discordance differed significantly by sex (p < 0.001). A rank-based partial correlation adjusting for BMI, age, and sex was attenuated but remained significant (r = 0.144, p = 0.004). Conclusions: IPAQ-SF categories showed poor individual-level agreement with sample-derived ISWT functional-capacity tertiles among university students in Kuwait. Self-reported physical activity and field-based functional capacity should therefore be interpreted as complementary rather than interchangeable measures. Larger multi-university studies across the GCC are needed to confirm these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad Salman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: