This study examined the criterion validity of an ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-reported physical activity and sedentary time compared with accelerometry in shift workers and non-shift workers. Australian workers (n = 102) received prompts through a mobile EMA app and wore the Actigraph accelerometer on the right hip for 7–10 days. Participants received five EMA prompts per day at 3-hour intervals on their mobile phones. EMA prompts sent to shift workers (SW-T) were tailored according to their work schedule. Non-shift workers (NSW-S) received prompts at standardised times. To assess criterion validity, the association of EMA-reported activities and the Actigraph accelerometer activity counts and number of steps were used. Participants were 36 ± 11 years and 58% were female. On occasions where participants reported physical activity, acceleration counts per minute (CPM) and steps were significantly higher (β = 1184 CPM, CI 95%: 1034, 1334; β = 20.9 steps, CI 95%: 18.2, 23.6) than each of the other EMA activities. Acceleration counts and steps were lower when sitting was reported than when no sitting was reported by EMA. Our study showed that EMA-reported physical activity and sedentary time was significantly associated with accelerometer-derived data. Therefore, EMA can be considered to assess shift workers’ movement-related behaviours with accelerometers to provide rich contextual data.

Projects

Currently no objects available

Currently no objects available