The IPAQ is a 27-item self-reported measure of physical activity for use with individual adult patients aged 15 to 69 years old. The IPAQ can be used clinically and in population research that compares physical activity levels between populations internationally.
27
15-30 minutes
Depends on number of questions
Initially reviewed by Dawn Miller PT, ATC in April 2015.
Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!
Adults:
(Craig, 2003; n = 2213 [long form]; 12 countries)
Excellent test-retest reliability for overall score (ICC = 0.81)
Excellent test-retest reliability for physical activity (ICC = 0.84-1.00)
Adequate test-retest reliability for sitting (ICC = 0.70)
(Rosenberg, 2008; n = 289; mean age 35.9 years)
Excellent test-retest reliability for sitting items for both sexes combined (ICC = 0.81)
Excellent for sitting items for men (ICC = 0.83)
Adequate for sitting items for women (ICC = 0.77)
(Alomari, 1993; n = 111; mean age 20.4 (1.3) years; College-enrolled)
Excellent test-retest reliability for walking items per week (ICC = 0.97)
Excellent test-retest reliability for moderate physical activity per week (ICC = 0.96)
Excellent test-retest reliability for vigorous physical activity per week (ICC = 0.97)
Excellent test-retest reliability for overall physical activity per week (ICC = 0.96)
Excellent test-retest reliability for sitting per week (ICC = 0.97)
Adults: (Hagstr?mer, 2006; n = 46, 19-62 years old, mean age 40.7 ± 10.3 years)
Excellent concurrent validity: correlations of time spent in vigorous physical activity compared to accelerometer monitoring (ρ = 0.71)
Adequate concurrent validity: correlation of total time spent in physical activity, in combined vigorous and moderate physical activity compared to accelerometer monitoring (ρ = 0.55, ρ = 0.36)
Poor concurrent validity: correlation of time spent in moderate physical activity and total time spent sitting compared to accelerometer monitoring (ρ = 0.20, ρ = 0.17 respectively)
Excellent concurrent validity: correlations of time spent in sitting and physical activity at work compared to log book monitoring (ρ = 0.75, ρ = 0.64 respectively)
Adequate concurrent validity: correlations of time spent in physical activity at home and during leisure time compared to log book monitoring (ρ = 0.47, ρ = 0.58 respectively)
(Rosenberg, 2008; n = 289; mean age 35.9 years)
Adequate correlation of sitting time and accelerometer recorded measurements for both sexes and for women only (ρ = 0.34, ρ = 0.43 respectively)
Poor correlation of sitting time for men only (ρ = 0.24)
(Kwak, 2012; n = 441; mean age 49.4 years – 18-67 years old)
Adequate concurrent validity: correlation with time spent on occupational physical activity for both sexes, for men, and for women compared with accelerometer (r = 0.46, r = 0.44, r = 0.49 respectively)
Adequate concurrent validity: correlation with time spent on occupational physical activity for normal weight and overweight workers compared with accelerometer (r = 0.44, r = 0.55 respectively)
Poor concurrent validity: correlation with time spent on occupational physical activity for obese workers compared with accelerometer (r = 0.27)
(Craig, 2003; n = 744 [long form vs. accelerometer]; 18-65 years old, 12 countries)
Adequate concurrent validity for all physical activity and total sitting time compared to accelerometer (ρ = 0.33)
(Chastin, 2014; n = 69; 18-65 years old)
Poor concurrent validity: correlation weekday and weekend sitting time compared with accelerometer (r = 0.17, r = 0.01 respectively)
(Alomari, 1993)
Poor concurrent validity of vigorous physical activity compared to:
Percent body fat (r = -0.2; p=0.02))
Muscle mass (r = 0.3; p<.01)
Maximal handgrip strength (r = 0.3; p<.01)
Six minute walk distance (r = 0.3; p<.01)
Poor concurrent validity of total physical activity compared to:
Percent body fat (r = -0.11; p = 0.26))
Muscle mass (r = 0.2; p<.01)
Maximal handgrip strength (r = 0.2; p<.01)
Six minute walk distance (r = 0.3; p<.01)
Adults:
(Rosenberg, 2008; n = 289; mean age 35.9 years)
Poor agreement between time spent sitting and IPAQ categories of activity (kappa = 0.014, P = 0.72; x2(4) = 2.52, P = 0.64)
(Kim, 2013; meta-analysis)
Adequate convergent validity (corrected mean effect size = ESp) with other instruments for walking, total moderate physical activity, vigorous physical activity, and total physical activity (ESp = 0.32, 0.45, 0.49, and 0.39 respectively)
Poor convergent validity with other instruments for moderate physical activity (ESp = 0.27)
Interviewer administered IPAQ had higher correlated mean effect size compared to self-administered IPAQ
(Hagstr?mer , 2006; n = 46, mean age 40.7 years – 19-62 years old)
Poor construct validity between physical activity time and moderate-intensity physical activity time compared to aerobic fitness (ρ=0.21, P < 0.05).
Poor construct validity between total amount of physical activity, moderate physical activity, and vigorous physical activity compared to Body Mass Index (ρ= 0.25, ρ=0.27, and ρ=0.17 respectively; P<0.01)
Poor construct validity between time spent in moderate or vigorous physical activity and aerobic fitness or percent body fat (ρ = 0.21, ρ = 0.14 respectively; P < 0.05)
Not assessed. However, because frequency, duration, and intensity of physical activity and sedentary behavior are assessed, the IPAQ is believed to have a high level of content validity (Craig, 2003)
Not assessed. However, excellent to adequate ICC values are consistent with a reliable face validity to assess levels of physical activity
Alomari, M. A., Keewan, E. F., Qhatan, R., Amer, A., Khabour, O. F., Maayah, M. F., & Hurtig-Wennl?f, A. (2011). Blood pressure and circulatory relationships with physical activity level in young normotensive individuals: IPAQ validity and reliability considerations. Clinical And Experimental Hypertension (New York, N.Y.: 1993), 33(5), 345-353. doi:10.3109/10641963.2010.531848
Bermúdez, V. J., Rojas, J. J., Córdova, E. B., A?ez, R., Toledo, A., Aguirre, M. A., & ... López-Miranda, J. (2013). International physical activity questionnaire overestimation is ameliorated by individual analysis of the scores. American Journal Of Therapeutics, 20(4), 448-458. doi:10.1097/MJT.0b013e318235f1f2
Chastin, S. M., Culhane, B., & Dall, P. M. (2014). Comparison of self-reported measure of sitting time (IPAQ) with objective measurement (activPAL). Physiological Measurement, 35(11), 2319-2328. doi:10.1088/0967-3334/35/11/2319
Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sj?str?m, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ainsworth, B. E., & ... Oja, P. (2003). International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine Science Sports Exercise, 35(8), 1381-1395.
Hagstr?mer, M., Oja, P., & Sj?str?m, M. (2006). The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): a study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutrition, 9(6), 755-762.
Kim, Y., Park, I., & Kang, M. (2013). Convergent validity of the international physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ): meta-analysis. Public Health Nutrition, 16(3), 440-452. doi:10.1017/S1368980012002996
Kwak, L., Hagstr?mer, M., & Sjostrom, M. (2012). Can the IPAQ-long be used to assess occupational physical activity?. Journal Physical Activity Health, 9(8), 1130-1137.
Rosenberg, D. E., Bull, F. C., Marshall, A. L., Sallis, J. F., & Bauman, A. E. (2008). Assessment of sedentary behavior with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Journal Physical Activity Health, 5 Suppl 1S30-S44.
We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.