The Effects of Stem and Non-stem Mathematics Corequisite Courses on Student Success at Public Institutions in West Virginia

This study explored the differences in student success outcomes between students enrolled in non-STEM and STEM corequisite mathematics courses at 18 postsecondary institutions across five academic years in West Virginia, using de-identified student data. The researcher analyzed this extant data to determine if student characteristics were predictors of success, as defined as passing the mathematics corequisite course, retention to the next semester, and earning a GPA of 2.0 or higher. The researcher also conducted analyses to understand if the differences in those outcomes between STEM and non-STEM courses were significant. This study identified statistically significant gaps in success for students who enrolled in STEM and non-STEM courses in retention and earning a GPA of 2.0 or higher. It further identified multiple student characteristics significantly predictive of passing a corequisite mathematics course (i.e., sex, race, Pell status, and mathematics course type), being retained to the next semester (i.e., sex, age, Pell status, and mathematics course type), and earning a GPA of 2.0 or higher (i.e., sex, age, race, Pell status, and mathematics course type), for students enrolled in both non-STEM and STEM mathematics corequisite courses at these institutions

Impact of accelerometer data processing decisions on the sample size, wear time and physical activity level of a large cohort study

Background: Accelerometers objectively assess physical activity (PA) and are currently used in several large-scale epidemiological studies, but there is no consensus for processing the data. This study compared the impact of wear-time assessment methods and using either vertical (V)-axis or vector magnitude (VM) cut-points on accelerometer output. Methods: Participants (7,650 women, mean age 71.4 y) were mailed an accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X+), instructed to wear it for 7 days, record dates and times the monitor was worn on a log, and return the monitor and log via mail. Data were processed using three wear-time methods (logs, Troiano or Choi algorithms) and V-axis or VM cut-points. Results: Using algorithms alone resulted in "mail-days" incorrectly identified as "wear-days" (27-79% of subjects had >7-days of valid data). Using only dates from the log and the Choi algorithm yielded: 1) larger samples with valid data than using log dates and times, 2) similar wear-times as using log dates and times, 3) more wear-time (V, 48.1 min more; VM, 29.5 min more) than only log dates and Troiano algorithm. Wear-time algorithm impacted sedentary time (~30-60 min lower for Troiano vs. Choi) but not moderate-to-vigorous (MV) PA time. Using V-axis cut-points yielded ~60 min more sedentary time and ~10 min less MVPA time than using VM cut-points. Conclusions: Combining log-dates and the Choi algorithm was optimal, minimizing missing data and researcher burden. Estimates of time in physical activity and sedentary behavior are not directly comparable between V-axis and VM cut-points. These findings will inform consensus development for accelerometer data processing in ongoing epidemiologic studies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1210) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Reliability and validity of three questionnaires measuring context-specific sedentary behaviour and associated correlates in adolescents, adults and older adults

BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid measures of total sedentary time, context-specific sedentary behaviour (SB) and its potential correlates are useful for the development of future interventions. The purpose was to examine test-retest reliability and criterion validity of three newly developed questionnaires on total sedentary time, context-specific SB and its potential correlates in adolescents, adults and older adults. METHODS: Reliability and validity was tested in six different samples of Flemish (Belgium) residents. For the reliability study, 20 adolescents, 22 adults and 20 older adults filled out the age-specific SB questionnaire twice. Test-retest reliability was analysed using Kappa coefficients, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and/or percentage agreement, separately for the three age groups. For the validity study, data were retrieved from 62 adolescents, 33 adults and 33 older adults, with activPAL as criterion measure. Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman plots (or non-parametric approach) were used to analyse criterion validity, separately for the three age groups and for weekday, weekend day and average day. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability for self-reported total sedentary time indicated following values: ICC = 0.37-0.67 in adolescents; ICC = 0.73-0.77 in adults; ICC = 0.68-0.80 in older adults. Item-specific reliability results (e.g. context-specific SB and its potential correlates) showed good-to-excellent reliability in 67.94%, 68.90% and 66.38% of the items in adolescents, adults and older adults respectively. All items belonging to sedentary-related equipment and simultaneous SB showed good reliability. The sections of the questionnaire with lowest reliability were: context-specific SB (adolescents), potential correlates of computer use (adults) and potential correlates of motorized transport (older adults). Spearman correlations between self-reported total sedentary time and the activPAL were different for each age group: rho = 0.02-0.42 (adolescents), rho = 0.06-0.52 (adults), rho = 0.38-0.50 (older adults). Participants over-reported total sedentary time (except for weekend day in older adults) compared to the activPAL, for weekday, weekend day and average day respectively by +57.05%, +46.29%, +53.34% in adolescents; +40.40%, +19.15%, +32.89% in adults; +10.10%, -6.24%, +4.11% in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: The questionnaires showed acceptable test-retest reliability and criterion validity. However, over-reporting of total SB was noticeable in adolescents and adults. Nevertheless, these questionnaires will be useful in getting context-specific information on SB

Associations of sitting accumulation patterns with cardio-metabolic risk biomarkers in Australian adults

Backgroun

Exploring the context of sedentary behaviour in older adults (what, where, why, when and with whom)

BACKGROUND: Older adults are the most sedentary segment of the population. Little information is available about the context of sedentary behaviour to inform guidelines and intervention. There is a dearth of information about when, where to intervene and which specific behaviours intervention should target. The aim of this exploratory study was to obtain objective information about what older adults do when sedentary, where and when they are sedentary and in what social context. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional data collection. Older adults (Mean age = 73.25, SD ± 5.48, median = 72, IQR = 11) volunteers wore activPAL monitors and a Vicon Revue timelapse camera between 1 and 7 days. Periods of sedentary behaviour were identified using the activPAL and the context extracted from the pictures taken during these periods. Analysis of context was conducted using the Sedentary Behaviour International Taxonomy classification system. RESULTS: In total, 52 days from 36 participants were available for analysis. Participants spent 70.1 % of sedentary time at home, 56.9 % of sedentary time on their own and 46.8 % occurred in the afternoon. Seated social activities were infrequent (6.9 % of sedentary bouts) but prolonged (18 % of sedentary time). Participants appeared to frequently have vacant sitting time (41 % of non-screen sedentary time) and screen sitting was prevalent (36 % of total sedentary time). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides valuable information to inform future interventions to reduce sedentary behaviour. Interventions should consider targeting the home environment and focus on the afternoon sitting time, though this needs confirmation in a larger study. Tackling social isolation may also be a target to reduce sedentary time

Systematic comparative validation of self-report measures of sedentary time against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL)

Background: Sedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor. Methods: Cross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss. Results: All self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics. Conclusion: Self-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided

Systematic literature review of determinants of sedentary behaviour in older adults:a DEDIPAC study

BACKGROUND: Older adults are the most sedentary segment of society and high sedentary time is associated with poor health and wellbeing outcomes in this population. Identifying determinants of sedentary behaviour is a necessary step to develop interventions to reduce sedentary time. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify factors associated with sedentary behaviour in older adults. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for articles published between 2000 and May 2014. The search strategy was based on four key elements: (a) sedentary behaviour and its synonyms; (b) determinants and its synonyms (e.g. correlates, factors); (c) types of sedentary behaviour (e.g. TV viewing, sitting, gaming) and (d) types of determinants (e.g. environmental, behavioural). Articles were included in the review if specific information about sedentary behaviour in older adults was reported. Studies on samples identified by disease were excluded. Study quality was rated by means of QUALSYST. The full review protocol is available from PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014009823). The analysis was guided by the socio-ecological model framework. RESULTS: Twenty-two original studies were identified out of 4472 returned by the systematic search. These included 19 cross-sectional, 2 longitudinal and 1 qualitative studies, all published after 2011. Half of the studies were European. The study quality was generally high with a median of 82 % (IQR 69-96 %) using Qualsyst tool. Personal factors were the most frequently investigated with consistent positive association for age, negative for retirement, obesity and health status. Only four studies considered environmental determinants suggesting possible association with mode of transport, type of housing, cultural opportunities and neighbourhood safety and availability of places to rest. Only two studies investigated mediating factors. Very limited information was available on contexts and sub-domains of sedentary behaviours. CONCLUSION: Few studies have investigated determinants of sedentary behaviour in older adults and these have to date mostly focussed on personal factors, and qualitative studies were mostly lacking. More longitudinal studies are needed as well as inclusion of a broader range of personal and contextual potential determinants towards a systems-based approach, and future studies should be more informed by qualitative work

Positive and negative well-being and objectively measured sedentary behaviour in older adults: evidence from three cohorts

Background: Sedentary behaviour is related to poorer health independently of time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity. The aim of this study was to investigate whether wellbeing or symptoms of anxiety or depression predict sedentary behaviour in older adults. Method: Participants were drawn from the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 (LBC1936) (n = 271), and the West of Scotland Twenty-07 1950s (n = 309) and 1930s (n = 118) cohorts. Sedentary outcomes, sedentary time, and number of sit-to-stand transitions, were measured with a three-dimensional accelerometer (activPAL activity monitor) worn for 7 days. In the Twenty-07 cohorts, symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed in 2008 and sedentary outcomes were assessed ~ 8 years later in 2015 and 2016. In the LBC1936 cohort, wellbeing and symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed concurrently with sedentary behaviour in 2015 and 2016. We tested for an association between wellbeing, anxiety or depression and the sedentary outcomes using multivariate regression analysis. Results: We observed no association between wellbeing or symptoms of anxiety and the sedentary outcomes. Symptoms of depression were positively associated with sedentary time in the LBC1936 and Twenty-07 1950s cohort, and negatively associated with number of sit-to-stand transitions in the LBC1936. Meta-analytic estimates of the association between depressive symptoms and sedentary time or number of sit-to-stand transitions, adjusted for age, sex, BMI, long-standing illness, and education, were β = 0.11 (95% CI = 0.03, 0.18) and β = − 0.11 (95% CI = − 0.19, −0.03) respectively. Conclusion: Our findings indicate that depressive symptoms are positively associated with sedentary behavior. Future studies should investigate the causal direction of this association

Validity and reliability of subjective methods to assess sedentary behaviour in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Subjective measures of sedentary behaviour (SB) (i.e. questionnaires and diaries/logs) are widely implemented, and can be useful for capturing type and context of SBs. However, little is known about comparative validity and reliability. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to: 1) identify subjective methods to assess overall, domain- and behaviour-specific SB, and 2) examine the validity and reliability of these methods. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and SPORTDiscus were searched up to March 2020. Inclusion criteria were: 1) assessment of SB, 2) evaluation of subjective measurement tools, 3) being performed in healthy adults, 4) manuscript written in English, and 5) paper was peer-reviewed. Data of validity and/or reliability measurements was extracted from included studies and a meta-analysis using random effects was performed to assess the pooled correlation coefficients of the validity. RESULTS: The systematic search resulted in 2423 hits. After excluding duplicates and screening on title and abstract, 82 studies were included with 75 self-reported measurement tools. There was wide variability in the measurement properties and quality of the studies. The criterion validity varied between poor-to-excellent (correlation coefficient [R] range - 0.01- 0.90) with logs/diaries (R = 0.63 [95%CI 0.48-0.78]) showing higher criterion validity compared to questionnaires (R = 0.35 [95%CI 0.32-0.39]). Furthermore, correlation coefficients of single- and multiple-item questionnaires were comparable (1-item R = 0.34; 2-to-9-items R = 0.35; ≥10-items R = 0.37). The reliability of SB measures was moderate-to-good, with the quality of these studies being mostly fair-to-good. CONCLUSION: Logs and diaries are recommended to validly and reliably assess self-reported SB. However, due to time and resources constraints, 1-item questionnaires may be preferred to subjectively assess SB in large-scale observations when showing similar validity and reliability compared to longer questionnaires. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105994

Stand Out in Class: restructuring theclassroom environment to reducesedentary behaviour in 9–10-year-olds—study protocol for a pilot clusterrandomised controlled trial

Background: Sedentary behaviour (sitting) is a highly prevalent negative health behaviour, with individuals of allages exposed to environments that promote prolonged sitting. Excessive sedentary behaviour adversely affects health inchildren and adults. As sedentary behaviour tracks from childhood into adulthood, the reduction of sedentary time inyoung people is key for the prevention of chronic diseases that result from excessive sitting in later life. The sedentaryschool classroom represents an ideal setting for environmentalchange, through the provision of sit-stand desks. Whilstthe use of sit-stand desks in classrooms demonstrates positiveeffects in some key outcomes, evidence is currently limitedby small samples and/or short intervention durations, withfewstudiesadoptingrandomisedcontrolledtrial(RCT)designs. This paper describes the protocol of a pilot cluster RCT of a sit-stand desk interventioninprimaryschoolclassrooms.Methods/Design:A two-arm pilot cluster RCT will be conducted in eight primary schools (four intervention, four control)with at least 120 year 5 children (aged 9–10 years). Sit-stand desks will replace six standard desks in the interventionclassrooms. Teachers will be encouraged to ensure all pupils are exposed to the sit-stand desks for at least 1 h/dayon average using a rotation system. Schools assigned to the control arm will continue with their usual practice, noenvironmental changes will be made to their classrooms. Measurements will be taken at baseline, beforerandomisation, and at the end of the schools’academic year. In this study, the primary outcomes of interest will beschool and participant recruitment and attrition, acceptability of the intervention, and acceptability and complianceto the proposed outcome measures (including activPAL-measured school-time and school-day sitting, accelerometer-measured physical activity, adiposity, blood pressure, cognitive function, academic progress, engagement, andbehaviour) for inclusion in a definitive trial. A full process evaluation and an exploratory economic evaluation willalso be conducted to further inform a definitive tria