Pediatric Exercise Science, 1997, 9, 342-352

0 1997 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Convergent Validity of the Physical Activity

Questionnaire for Adolescents

Kent C. Kowalski, Peter R.E. Crocker, and

Nanette P. Kowalski

This study assessed the convergent validity of the Physical Activity Question-
naire for Adolescents (PAQ-A). The PAQ-A is a modified version for high
school students of the PhysicalActivity Questionnairefor Older Children (PAQ-
C). The PAQ-A is a 7-day recall used to assess general physical activity levels
during the school year. Eighty-five high school students in Grades 8 through
12 filled out the PAQ-A and other physical activity measures. The PAQ-A was
moderately related to an activity rating (r = .73), the Leisure Time Exercise
Questionnaire(r = .57), a Caltrac motion sensor (r = .33), and the 7-day physi-
cal activity recall interview (r = .59). The results of this study support the
convergent validity of the PAQ-A as a measure of general physical activity
level for high school students.
Reliable and valid assessment of physical activity is needed to understand
the relationship between physical activity and health-related variables for children
and adolescents. There is a variety of assessment methods (5), with self-report
questionnaires offering a low-cost, easy-to-administer option. Many self-report
instruments have been used, often having been designed for specific study objec-
tives (5, 13). Frequently, reliability and validity evidence has not been provided
(14) or evidence has been supported indirectly (18).
The foremost limitation to providing validity evidence for physical activity
assessment in children and adolescents is that there is no "gold standard by which
self-reports can be validated (1). An appropriate criterion is needed to establish
criterion-related validity; thus, it may be more appropriate to look at the correla-
tions among physical activity test scores as evidence of convergent validity. Physi-
cal activity measures, including self-report questionnaires and interviews (7, 11,
16, 17) and motion sensors (9, 12, 14), are expected to be related to one another.
Examining correlations among measures has been used in other physical activity
assessment validation studies (10, 11, 15). The various measures assess either
actual or usual activity levels, but one would expect a relationship among them

K.C. Kowalski, P.R.E. Crocker, and N.P. Kowalski are with the College of Physical
Education at the University of Saskatchewan, 105 Gymnasium Place, Saskatoon, SK Canada
S7N 5C2.
 Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents - 343

because they are measuring a similar construct. Thus, correlations among the physi-
cal activity measures which assess either actual or usual activity would provide
some evidence of construct validity, as well as convergent validity.

The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A)

The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A) is a high school
student version of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-
C), which was developed for the University of Saskatchewanpediatric bone study
to assess general levels of physical activity during the school year for students
beyond Grade 3 (4, 11). It is a self-administered 7-day recall questionnaire that
asks students to recall physical activity for the last 7 days. The PAQ-A was de-
signed for large-sample studies and can be completed in a classroom setting. It
takes approximately 10 to 15 min for a student to complete the PAQ-A. For el-
ementary school students, the PAQ-C total activity score is derived from nine items,
each scored on a 5-point scale. For high school students, the PAQ-A total activity
score consists of eight items (the question about activity at recess is removed).
There is reliability and validity evidence for the elementary school version
of the PAQ-C. Test-retest reliability of the PAQ-C over a one-week period was r =
.75 for males and r = .82 for females from Grades 4 to 8 (4). Two validity studies
have also been conducted for students in Grades 4 through 8 (11). The first study
found the PAQ-C to be related to Sallis et al.'s (17) activity rating (r = .63),Simons-
Morton et al.'s (21) week summation of daily activity recalls (r = .53), Saris et al.'s
(20) teacher's rating of physical activity (r = .45), and Harter's (8) perceptions of
athletic competence (r = .48). In the second study, the PAQ-C was moderately
related to the activity rating (r = .57), Godin and Shephard's (7) Leisure Time
Exercise Questionnaire (r = .4 I), Sallis et al.'s (16) 7-day physical activity recall
interview (r = .46), Bailey and Minvald's (2) step-test of fitness (r = .28), and the
Caltrac motion sensor (r = .39).
There is reliability evidence but no validity evidence presently for the use of
the PAQ-A with high school students. Generalizability coefficients were G = .90
for three scores and G = .85 for two scores for 97 students 13 years of age and
older who were administered the PAQ-A three times over a one-year period (4).
Although the PAQ-A and PAQ-C differ only by one question, the validity of the
PAQ-A needs to be established with a high school population. High school stu-
dents may participate in different activities and at different times, potentially mak-
ing the PAQ-A inappropriate for high school students.
The purpose of this study was to assess the convergent validity of the PAQ-
A with high school students. Various methods of physical activity assessment (ques-
tionnaires, an interview, and the Caltrac motion sensor) were included in the study
to limit the effects of employing a single assessment method on correlations among
physical activity measures. It was expected that the PAQ-A would be related to
other measures of physical activity.

Method
Participants
Adolescents between Grades 8 and 12 were recruited from two private schools in
Saskatchewan. All students and parentslguardiansprovided informed consent. The
344 - Kowalski, Crocker, and Kowalski

sample consisted of 85 students (41 male, 44 female) ranging in age from 13 to 20

years (M = 16.25, SD = 1.51).

Measures
The PhysicalActivity Questionnaire for Adolescents (PAQ-A). The PAQ-A
is an eight-item version of the nine-item Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older
Children (PAQ-C; 4, 11).The items on the PAQ-A (see Appendix) are the same as
for the PAQ-C, except that the question regarding physical activity during recess is
discarded and the activities on the activity checklist are slightly different. The items
on the checklist can be modified to make the activities culturally and normatively
relevant. The eight items on the PAQ-A, each scored on a 5-point scale, are used in
the calculation of a summary total activity score for high school students. The
PAQ-A composite is calculated as the mean of the eight items. The additional item
pertaining to determining if sickness or other events prevented the student from
doing her or his regular activity is not used in the calculation of the summary
activity score.
Seven-Day Recall Interview (PAR). The 7-day physical activity recall (PAR)
is a standardized interview that assists subjects in recalling various intensities of
activity (16). Summary variables include moderate, hard, and very hard activities,
as well as an index of caloric expenditure. For adolescents, the physical activity
recall interview kilocalorie expenditure index had a 2-week test-retest correlation
of r = .59 for 8th graders, and r = .81 for 1lth graders (15). Validity coefficients
comparing very hard recalls with heart rates on the same day were r = .45 for
Grade 8 and r = .75 for Grade 11 students (15).
Activity Rating. The activity rating requires adolescents to rate their activ-
ity levels compared to others of their same age and sex (17). The scale responses
range from 1 (much less active) to 5 (much more active). The activity index dem-
onstrated test-retest reliability of r = .85 for 8th graders and r = .89 for 11th graders
over a 2-week period (15). The activity index was related to the PAR kilocalorie
expenditure index for Grade 8 students (r = .38), but not for Grade 11 students
(15).
Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire, The Leisure Time Exercise Ques-
tionnaire consists of two scores (7). A total exercise score (Godin 1) asks for the
frequency of strenuous, moderate, and mild exercise over an average 7-day period,
while a second question (Godin 2) asks how often during a week the individual
engages in sweat-inducingregular activity Two-week test-retest reliability for Godin
1 was r = .80 for Grade 8 students and r = .96 for Grade 11 students (15). Godin 1
was related to the PAR interview ( r = .60 for Grade 8; r = .3 2 for Grade 11) but not
an activity rating for Grade 8 and 11 students (15).
Caltrac Motion Sensor. The Caltrac (Muscle Dynamics, Torrance, CA) is
an electronic, single plane accelerometer that measures vertical acceleration.
Interinstrument reliabilities for children from 8 to 13 years of age were r = .96
and r = .89 in the field and lab, respectively (14). The Caltrac was related to the
PAR interview (r =.49 on Day 1 and r = .39 on Day 2) and heart rate monitoring
(r = .54 on Day 1 and r = .42 on Day 2) for children from 8 to 13 years of age (14).
The Caltrac has also been related to 24-hr energy expenditure (r = 30) and walk-
ing energy expenditure (r = .85) calorimeter values for female adolescents (3).
 PhysicalActivity Questionnaire for Adolescents - 345

Procedures
Studentsfrom the two schoolswere assessed over separate 2-week periods (late March-
early April and late May-early June). Special school events were avoided that may
have changed normal activity behavior. Students were assessed on 2 separate days, 7
days apart. Due to the possibility of carryover effects, scores from the interview and
Caltrac were obtained from a different 7-day period than the PAQ-A, activity rating,
and Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire.
On the first testing occasion, the PAQ-A was administered in class, followed
by the activity rating and the Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. Research as-
sistants gave verbal instructions and were available to answer questions. Follow-
ing completion of the questionnaires,instructions on the use and care of the Caltrac
were given. Standardized constants were entered into the Caltrac. They were taped
in a holster to prevent tampering. Students in both schools wore the Caltrac for 7
days. Students at the first school received a phone call each evening as a reminder
to wear the Caltrac. At the second school, the students lived in dormitories and did
not have telephones; therefore, reminding students to wear the Caltracs was done
by school administrators. The Caltrac was recovered at the end of the 7-day pe-
riod, and the activity per day (corrected for the number of days worn) was re-
corded. In order for the students' Caltrac data to be used, it had to have been worn
for at least 5 of the 7 days, including at least one weekend day. A 5-day minimum
was chosen to minimize loss of subjects while providing sufficient data to estimate
habitual activity for the week.
Caltrac data was collected for only 56.47% of students (7 students did not
wear the Caltrac for at least 5 days, 28 tampered with the Caltrac, 1 was absent
when the Caltrac data were recorded, and 1 forgot the Caltrac on the final day of
testing). Following collection of the Caltrac, each participant was interviewed us-
ing the 7-day recall.

Results and Discussion

Descriptive statistics for the PAQ-A, activity rating, the two scores on the Leisure
Time Exercise Questionnaire (Godin I and Godin 2), Caltrac (average activity counts
per day), the physical activity recall kilocalorie energy expenditure index (PAR),
and the physical activity recall interview total hours spent in moderate, hard, and
very hard activity (PAR hours) are shown in Table 1. Compared to the PAQ-C
validation study previously done with elementary school children (1I), the high
school student's mean activity levels on all scales were lower.
Pearson product-moment correlations among physical activity measures are
shown in Table 2. The hypothesis that the PAQ-A would be moderately correlated
with other physical activity measures was supported, with the magnitude of come-
lations ranging from r = .33 to .73 ( p < .05). The correlations between Godin 2 and
other measures are negative because higher scores on the Godin 2 scale represent
lower activity levels. Compared with the correlations among measures for elemen-
tary school students (1l), correlations for high school students were higher except
with the Caltrac. This indicates that with age, children and adolescents become
more consistent in their self-reports, regardless of method of assessment, but these
self-reports may be less related to objective measures. Although self-reports are more
reliable for older students, they may be less accurate. In fact, only the PAQ-A and the
two scores on the physical activity recall interview (PAR and PAR hours) were re-
346 - Kowalski, Crocker, and Kowalski

Table 1 Descriptives for the PAQ-A Activity Rating, Godin 1, Godin 2, Caltrac,
PAR, and PAR Hours

Variable n M SD

PAQ-A
Full sample
Males
Females
Activity rating
Full sample
Males
Females
Godin 1
Full sample
Males
Females
Godin 2
Full sample
Males
Females
Caltrac
Full sample
Males
Females
PAR
Full sample
Males
Females
PAR hours
Full sample
Males
Females

Note. PAQ-A = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents; PAR = 7-day physical
activity recall kilocalorie energy expenditure index; PAR hours = PAR interview total
hours spent in moderate, hard, and very hard activity. The possible range of scale scores
are as follows: PAW-A, 1 (low activity) to 5 (high activity); activity rating, 1 (low) to 5
(high); Godin 1,0 (low) to unlimited (high); Godin 2, 3 (low) to 1 (high); Caltrac, 0
(low) to unlimited (high); PAR, 24 (low) to unlimited (high); PAR hours, 0 (low) to
unlimited (high).

lated to the Caltrac motion sensor, but all self-report indicators were significantly
correlated with each other. Measures that assessed usual (activity rating, Godin 1,
Godin 2) or actual activity (Caltrac, PAR, PAR hours) did not have systematically
higher or lower correlations with the PAQ-A, which assesses activity over the
previous 7 days. This result suggests that assessment of actual physical activity
a 7-day period may provide m s t i m a t e of gen-eral activity level:
 Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents - 347

Table 2 Pearson Product-Moment CorrelationsAmong Measures

Variable

1. PAQ-A -
2. Activity rating .73*
(85)
3. Godin 1 .57*
(85)
4. Godin 2 -.62*
(85)
5. Caltrac .33*
(48)
6. PAR .59*
(83)
7. PAR hours .51*
(83)

Note. PAQ-A = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents; PAR = 7-day physical
activity recall kilocalorie energy expenditure index; PAR hours = PAR interview total hours
spent in moderate, hard, and very hard activity. Correlationmatrix is based on pairwise
comparisons,and the n values (in parentheses) may differ.
*p < .05 (one-tail significance).

Although the small and nonsignificant correlations between the Caltrac and
other physical activity measures may indicate lack of validity in adolescents' self-
reports, the correlations may be due to excessive tampering with the Caltrac by
students. Only 48 of 85 students had usable Caltrac data, due mainly to tampering
with the devices. As a result, the correlations between the Caltrac and other mea-
sures were based on a smaller number of students, resulting in reduced power and
greater instability in the magnitude of the correlation coefficients. There was some
tampering with the Caltrac in the elementary school study (ll), but it was not as
great as for the high school students.
The problem of participants tampering with objective measures of physical
activity in field studies needs to be addressed. In the present study the group with
usable Caltrac data differed significantly on the PAQ-A from the group who did
not have useable Caltrac data, t(83) = 2.78, p < .05, suggesting that lower activity
individuals may be more likely to tamper with mechanical devices. It may also be
that either the group of students that tampered with the Caltrac, or the group that
did not tamper, were less likely to provide accurate self-reports on the question-
naires. Sallis et al. (14) did not report high rates of tampering with the Caltrac, but
this may be primarily due to fewer subjects and a shorter time period over which
the Caltrac was worn. One solution to the tampering problem is to reduce the
number of days of monitoring to 4 or 5. This shorter period is adequate to get a
reliable estimate of physical activity from an accelerometer (lo), but the validity
of the shorter time period as a measure of usual activity needs to be established.
The Caltrac motion sensor is also limited as a physical activity measure be-
cause it cannot be worn in water, can potentially be damaged in contact sports, and
348 - Kowalski, Crocker, and Kowalski

can be forgotten to be worn in multiple-day studies because its use is not part of a
student's daily routine. Also, it is very difficult for a researcher to know if the
Caltrac was worn throughout the entire course of the study. Low activity values
may result from low activity levels or failure to wear the Caltrac.
Gender differences were found only on the PAQ-A, t(83) = 3.01, p < .05,
with males having higher activity levels than females. Males and females did not
significantly differ on any of the other physical activity measures. The lack of
consistent gender differences across measures was unexpected (except for the ac-
tivity rating). In the elementary school studies (1I), males and females differed on
the PAQ-C in only one of the two studies. The PAR and Godin 1 measures were
administered in only the second of the two studies, and the PAR demonstrated
gender differences, whereas the Godin 1 score did not. Other studies using the
PAR or Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire have not statistically tested for gen-
der differences, although it appears that males generally have higher scores than
do females (6, 15). In the present study, students were volunteers, which limits the
generalizability of the results. Further examination of gender differences in stud-
ies that do not utilize self-selection is definitely warranted.
Overall, the results of this study support the convergent validity of the PAQ-
A. Consistent with the correlations among physical activity measures in the el-
ementary school study (1l), the PAQ-Agenerally had the highest correlations with
other measures. An advantage of the PAQ-A is that it is quick to administer and
inexpensive, and appears to provide a valid measure of high school students' gen-
eral activity levels. Although the PAR interview is more time consuming and ex-
pensive than the PAQ-A, it allows for the breakdown of activity into intensity level.
The purpose of the PAQ-A is to assess general levels of physical activity, and was
not designed to provide information on frequency, intensity, or duration of activity.
Another limitation of the PAQ-A is that it only assesses physical activity during
the school year. The choice of an activity measure must be driven by the research
question and the specific study needs and objectives. Thus, there can be no univer-
sally accepted standard technique for assessing physical activity (5).Correlations
between the PAQ-A and PAR moderate (r = -.06, ns), hard (r = .37, p < .05), and
very hard (r = .58, p < .05) activities indicate that the PAQ-A measures more vig-
orous types of activities. These results are consistent with the correlations between
the PAQ-C and the PAR activity levels for elementary school students (11).
Construct validity studies should be conducted in future research, and con-
vergent validity of the PAQ-A would be strengthened by comparing it to physical
activity measures such as doubly labelled water (19) or the Tritrac motion sensor
(12). The Tritrac would also be useful in helping to establish the boundary condi-
tions for the PAQ-A. It is important to determine what types and intensity of activi-
ties are accurately assessed by the PAQ-A. Also, both the PAQ-C and the PAQ-A
should be able to discriminate between various groups of children and adolescents
who are known to differ in physical activity levels, and because highly active indi-
viduals often engage in specific activities during certain time periods, it is possible
that both measures underestimate high activity levels.

References
1. Aaron, D.J., A.M. Kriska, S.R. Dearwater, J.A. Cauley, K.F. Metz, and R.E. LaPorte.
Reproducibility and validity of an epidemiologic questionnaire to assess past year physi-
cal activity in adolescents. Am. J. Epidemiol. 142:191-201, 1995.
 Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents - 349

2. Bailey, D.A., and R.L. Mirwald. A children's test of fitness. In: Medicine and Sport
(Vol. 1I), E. Jokl (Ed.). New York: KargerIBasel, 1978, pp. 56-64.
3. Bray, M.S., W.W. Wong, J.R. Morrow, N.F. Butte, and J.M. Pivarnik. Caltrac versus
calorimeter determination of 24-h energy expenditure in female children and adoles-
cents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:1524-1530, 1994.
4. Crocker, P.R.E., D.A. Bailey, R.A. Faulkner, K.C. Kowalski, andR. McGrath. Measur-
ing general levels of physical activity: Preliminary evidence for the Physical Activity
Questionnaire for Older Children. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. In press.
5. Freedson, P.S., and E.L. Melanson, Jr. Measuring physical activity. In: Measurement in
Pediatric Exercise Science, D. Docherty (Ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics, 1996, pp.
261-283.
6. Godin, G., and R.J. Shephard. Normative beliefs of school children concerning regular
exercise. J. Sch. Health 54:443-445, 1984.
7. Godin, G., and R.J. Shephard.A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the com-
munity. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci. 10:141-146, 1985.
8. Harter, S. Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children [Revision of the Per-
ceived Competence Scale for Children]. Denver: University of Denver, 1985.
9. Janz, K.F. Validation of the CSA accelerometer for assessing children's physical activ-
ity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:369-375, 1994.
10. Janz, K.F., J. Witt, and L.T. Mahoney. The stability of children's physical activity as
measured by accelerometry and self-report. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27: 1326-1332,1995.
11. Kowalski, K.C., P.R.E. Crocker, and R.A. Faulkner. Validation of the Physical Activity
Questionnaire for Older Children. Pediatl: Exerc. Sci. 9: 174-186, 1997.
12. Matthews, C. E., and P. S. Freedson. Field trial of a three-dimensionalactivity monitor:
Comparison with self report. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:1071-1078, 1995.
13. Sallis, J.F. Self-report measures of children's physical activity. J. Sch. Health 61:215-
219,1991.
14. Sallis, J.F., M.J. Buono, J.J. Roby, D. Carlson, and J.A. Nelson. The Caltrac accelerom-
eter as a physical activity monitor for school-aged children. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
22:698-703, 1990.
15. Sallis, J.F., M.J. Buono, J.J. Roby, F.G. Micale, and J.A. Nelson. Seven-day recall and
other physical activity self-reports in children and adolescents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
25:99-108, 1993.
16. Sallis, J.F., W.L. Haskell, P.D. Wood, S.P. Fortmann, T. Rogers, S.N. Blair, and R.S.
Paffenbarger. Physical activity assessment methodology in the five-city project Am. J.
Epidemiol. 121:91-106, 1985.
17. Sallis, J.F., T.L. Patterson, M.J. Buono, and P.R. Nader. Relation of cardiovascular fit-
ness and physical activity to cardiovascular disease risk factors in children and adults.
Am. J. Epidemiol. 127:933-941, 1988.
18. Sallis, J.F., J.M. Zakarian, M.E Hovell, and C.R. Hofstetter. Ethnic, socioeconomic,
and sex differencesin physical activity among adolescents.J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49: 125-
134,1996.
19. Saris, W.H.M. New developments in the assessment of physical activity in children. In:
Pediatric Work Physiology: Methodological, Physiological and Pathological Aspects,
J. Coudert, & E. Van Praagh (Eds.). Paris: Masson, 1992, pp. 107-114.
20. Saris,W.H.M., R.A. Binkhorst, A.B. Cramwinckel, F. Van Waesberghe, and A.M. Van der
Veen-Hezemans. The relationship between working performance, daily physical activity,
fatness, blood lipids, and nutrition in schoolchildren. In: Children and Exercise IX, K.
Berg and B.O. Eriksson (Eds.). Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980, pp. 166-174.
350 - Kowalski, Crocker, and Kowalski

21. Simons-Morton, B.G., N.M. O'Hara, G.S. Parcel, I.W. Huang, T. Baranowski, and B.
Wilson. Children's frequency of participation in moderate to vigorous physical activi-
ties. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 61:307-3 14,1990.

Appendix

Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents

Name: Age:
Sex: M F Grade:
Teacher:

We are trying to find out about your level of physical activity fromthe last 7days (in the last
week). This includes sports or dance that make you sweat or make your legs feel tired, or
games that make you breathe hard, like tag, skipping, running, climbing and others.

Remember:
A. There are no right and wrong answers-this is not a test.
B. Please answer all the questions as honestly and accurately as you can-this is very
important.

1. Physical activity in your spare time: Have you done any of the following activities in
the past 7 days (last week)? If yes, how many times? (Mark only one circle per row.)

7 times
No 1-2 3-4 5-6 or more
Skipping .......................................
Rowinglcanoeing .........................
In-line skating ..............................
Tag ...............................................
Walking for exercise ....................
Bicycling ......................................
Jogging or running .......................
Aerobics .......................................
Swimming ...................................
Baseball, softball .........................
Dance ...........................................
Football ........................................
Badminton ...................................
Skateboarding ..............................
Soccer ..........................................
Street hockey ...............................

continued
 Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents .
351

7 times
No 1-2 3-4 5-6 or more
Volleyball ..................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Floor hockey ................................ 0 0 0 0 0
Basketball .................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Ice skating .................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Cross-country skiing .................... 0 0 0 0 0
Ice hockeylringette ...................... 0 0 0 0 0
Other:
..... 0 0 0 0 0
..... 0 0 0 0 0

2. In the last 7 days. during your physical education (PE) classes. how often were you very
active (playing hard. running. jumping. throwing)? (Check one only.)

I don't do PE .................................................................. 0
Hardly ever .................................................................... 0
Sometimes .................................................................... 0
Quite often ...................................................................... 0
Always ............................................................................ 0

3. In the last 7 days. what did you normally do at lunch (besides eating lunch)? (Check
one only.)

Sat down (talking. reading. doing schoolwork) ............. 0

Stood around or walked around ..................................... 0
Ran or played a little bit ................................................. 0
Ran around and played quite a bit .................................. 0
Ran and played hard most of the time ............................ 0

4. In the last 7 days. on how many days right after school. did you do sports. dance. or
play games in which you were very active? (Check one only.)

None ............................................................................... 0
1 time last week .............................................................. 0
2 or 3 times last week ..................................................... 0
4 times last week ............................................................ 0
5 times last week ............................................................ 0

5 . In the last 7 days. on how many evenings did you do sports. dance. or play games in
which you were very active? (Check one only.)

None ...............................................................................
1 time last week ..............................................................
2 or 3 times last week .....................................................
4 times last week ............................................................
6 or 7 times last week .....................................................
352 - Kowalski, Crocker, and Kowalski

6. On the last weekend. how many times did you do sports, dance, or play games in which
you were very active? (Check one only.)

None ............................................................................... 0
1 time .............................................................................. 0
2-3 times ........................................................................ 0
4-5 times ........................................................................ 0
6 or more times .............................................................. 0

7. Which one of the following describes you best for the last 7 days? Read allfive state-
ments before deciding on the one answer that describes you.

A. All or most of my free time was spent doing things that involve little
physical effort 0
B. I sometimes (1-2 times last week) did physical things in my free time
(e.g., played sports, went running, swimming, bike riding, did aerobics) 0
C. I often (3-4 times last week) did physical things in my free time 0
D. I quite often (5-6 times last week) did physical things in my free time 0
E. I very often (7 or more times last week) did physical things in my free time 0
8. Mark how often you did physical activity (like playing sports, games, doing dance, or
any other physical activity) for each day last week.

Little very
None bit Medium Often often
Monday ...................... 0 0 0 0 0
Tuesday ...................... 0 0 0 0 0
Wednesday ................. 0 0 0 0 0
Thursday ..................... 0 0 0 0 0
Friday ......................... 0 0 0 0 0
Saturday ...................... 0 0 0 0 0
Sunday ........................ 0 0 0 0 0
9. Were you sick last week, or did anything prevent you from doing your normal physical
activities? (Check one.)

Yes .................................................................................. 0
No ..............................................................................,.... 0
If Yes, what prevented you?

Acknowledgments
The first two authors made equal contributions in the writing of this paper. Funding
for this project was provided by the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation. The authors
would like to thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments, as
well as the students and administrators involved in the study.