Seeking to improve criterion and construct validity of retrospective self-reports of physical activity with brief reporting periods and quantitative response scales

Self-reported information is central to many scientific fields and achieving high levels of validity for these data is paramount. Concerns have been voiced about the validity of retrospective self-reports because of possible distortion of recall by memory failures and cognitive heuristics. In this study we test two techniques with the potential to improve self-report validity: the use of brief reporting periods (near-momentary reports) and of quantitative response scales (duration in minutes). To evaluate validity, a set of self-reported physical activity outcomes were compared with objectively assessed physical activities. A total of 258 community-dwelling adults self-reported their momentary physical activity 5 times per day and wore accelerometers throughout 7 days; they also provided end-of-week assessments of physical activity. Regarding criterion validity, all self-reports indicated lower duration of sedentary behavior, however, momentary reports were closer in magnitude to accelerometry than were 1-week recall reports. All self-reports indicated greater duration of physical activity than accelerometry. Correlations between self-reports and accelerometry data were low to modest for momentary and retrospective reports; they were also low for reporting with quantitative versus relativistic, Verbal Response Scales, with the exception of momentary reports of sedentary duration (r = .61). Regarding construct validity, associations between most demographic variables and self-reports did not replicate those observed for accelerometry-based measures; in some cases, these associations showed opposite directions, indicating poor validity. In sum, apart from two criterion validity analyses showing higher validity for momentary reporting (compared with recall), the results did not support the hypotheses that the use of brief reporting periods and quantitative response scales improved validity over 7-day reporting and Verbal Response Scales, respectively. Particularly concerning was the poor performance of all methods in tests of construct validity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-16741-8
Primary Topic
Behavioral Health and Interventions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Seeking to improve criterion and construct validity of retrospective self-reports of physical activity with brief reporting periods and quantitative response scales

Doerte U. Junghaenel, Stefan Schneider, Arthur A. Stone, Meynard John L. Toledo et al.
Scientific Reports
Behavioral Health and Interventions
article

Seeking to improve criterion and construct validity of retrospective self-reports of physical activity with brief reporting periods and quantitative response scales

Doerte U. Junghaenel, Stefan Schneider, Arthur A. Stone, Meynard John L. Toledo, Sarah Goldstein, Joshua Morrison Smyth, Olivia Pomeroy
article en

Abstract

Self-reported information is central to many scientific fields and achieving high levels of validity for these data is paramount. Concerns have been voiced about the validity of retrospective self-reports because of possible distortion of recall by memory failures and cognitive heuristics. In this study we test two techniques with the potential to improve self-report validity: the use of brief reporting periods (near-momentary reports) and of quantitative response scales (duration in minutes). To evaluate validity, a set of self-reported physical activity outcomes were compared with objectively assessed physical activities. A total of 258 community-dwelling adults self-reported their momentary physical activity 5 times per day and wore accelerometers throughout 7 days; they also provided end-of-week assessments of physical activity. Regarding criterion validity, all self-reports indicated lower duration of sedentary behavior, however, momentary reports were closer in magnitude to accelerometry than were 1-week recall reports. All self-reports indicated greater duration of physical activity than accelerometry. Correlations between self-reports and accelerometry data were low to modest for momentary and retrospective reports; they were also low for reporting with quantitative versus relativistic, Verbal Response Scales, with the exception of momentary reports of sedentary duration (r = .61). Regarding construct validity, associations between most demographic variables and self-reports did not replicate those observed for accelerometry-based measures; in some cases, these associations showed opposite directions, indicating poor validity. In sum, apart from two criterion validity analyses showing higher validity for momentary reporting (compared with recall), the results did not support the hypotheses that the use of brief reporting periods and quantitative response scales improved validity over 7-day reporting and Verbal Response Scales, respectively. Particularly concerning was the poor performance of all methods in tests of construct validity.

Scientific ReportsVol. 15(1)
University of Southern California (US), The Ohio State University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Behavioral Health and Interventions
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.