International Physical Activity Questionnaire

Abstract

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was developed in response to the urgent global need for standardized, internationally comparable surveillance of physical activity among diverse adult populations. Formulated by an international consensus group convened under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) between 1997 and 1998, the IPAQ assesses health-related physical activity across multiple behavioral domains. The comprehensive long form (IPAQ-LF) captures continuous metrics of duration and frequency across five distinct domains: job-related physical activity, transportation physical activity, housework and domestic maintenance, recreation and leisure-time physical activity, and sedentary behavior (time spent sitting). Using a continuous metric expressed in Metabolic Equivalent of Task minutes per week (MET-minutes/week) alongside a three-tier categorical classification system (low, moderate, and high activity levels), the instrument models energy expenditure across walking (3.3 METs), moderate-intensity exertion (4.0 METs), and vigorous-intensity exertion (8.0 METs).

Psychometric evaluation across a landmark 12-country validation study demonstrated robust repeatability, with pooled test-retest reliability Spearman’s correlation coefficients (ρ) clustering around 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.82) for the long-form instrument. Criterion-related validity evaluated against accelerometry yielded a pooled median correlation of 0.33, comparable to other established self-report behavioral measures. Construct validity is supported by significant associations between classified activity tiers and physiological markers, cardiovascular fitness, and metabolic risk profiles. The IPAQ has been translated into dozens of languages and remains one of the most widely applied epidemiological and public health surveillance instruments worldwide, providing critical baseline data for clinical interventions, physical activity policy benchmarking, and global health research.

Keywords

International Physical Activity Questionnaire, IPAQ, physical activity measurement, energy expenditure, MET-minutes, sedentary behavior, public health surveillance, psychometrics, test-retest reliability, criterion validity, behavioral epidemiology

Authors

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire was developed through an extensive international consensus process initiated in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1998. The primary working group and key investigators responsible for the conceptualization, development, and cross-national psychometric validation include:

• Michael L. Booth — School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia.
• Barbara E. Ainsworth — Department of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences, San Diego State University, USA (subsequently Arizona State University).
• Michael Pratt — National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Ulf Ekelund — Department of Physical Education and Health, Örebro University, Sweden (subsequently Norwegian School of Sport Sciences and MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, UK).
• Chantal L. Craig — Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
• Fiona C. Bull — School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, UK (subsequently World Health Organization).
• Adrian Bauman — Prevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia.
• James F. Sallis — Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, USA.
• Kenneth E. Powell — Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
• Ilkka Vuori — UKK Institute for Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland.
• Maria Sjöström — Unit for Preventive Nutrition, Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

The collaborative initiative was facilitated through support from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and partner academic institutions across the participating nations.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire is to provide a standardized, globally applicable, and psychometrically sound measurement tool for assessing physical activity and sedentary behavior across adult populations aged 15 to 69 years. Historically, physical activity research and epidemiological surveillance relied on national or regional questionnaires with divergent conceptualizations of physical activity, varying recall windows (e.g., past year, past month, usual week, or past 7 days), and disparate intensity thresholds. Consequently, cross-national comparisons of physical activity prevalence, compliance with international physical activity guidelines, and the global burden of physical inactivity were severely compromised by instrument variance.

The IPAQ long form addresses this limitation by comprehensively measuring physical activity across all major life domains rather than focusing exclusively on structured exercise or leisure-time sports. In many low- and middle-income countries, as well as distinct occupational groups in high-income nations, the predominant share of daily energy expenditure occurs not during recreational leisure time, but through active commuting, occupational labor, and domestic household maintenance. By disaggregating physical activity into these four operational domains—occupational, transportation, domestic/gardening, and leisure-time—the IPAQ provides public health researchers, epidemiologists, and behavioral scientists with a granular profile of behavioral patterns. This enables targeted intervention design, such as evaluating whether an urban transit reform increases active transportation or whether occupational interventions reduce prolonged workplace sitting.

In clinical settings and health behavior intervention research, the IPAQ serves both diagnostic and evaluative functions. Clinicians and exercise physiologists use the continuous output (MET-minutes/week) and categorical classifications to screen patients for sedentary lifestyles, stratify cardiovascular and metabolic risk, design personalized physical activity prescriptions, and track longitudinal behavioral modifications following clinical, surgical, or behavioral interventions. Furthermore, the explicit quantification of sedentary behavior—operationalized as weekday and weekend sitting time—facilitates independent evaluation of sedentary patterns, which represent an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Psychological Construct

The core construct assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire is self-reported habitual health-related physical activity, along with the distinct construct of sedentary behavior. In exercise physiology and psychometrics, physical activity is formally defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in caloric energy expenditure above basal levels. Rather than treating physical activity as a unidimensional latent trait, the IPAQ operationalizes it as a multidimensional, domain-specific behavioral construct characterized by frequency (days per week), duration (minutes per day), and intensity (metabolic demand).

1. Job-Related Physical Activity

This dimension quantifies physical exertion performed in the context of paid employment, farming, unpaid volunteer work, or external non-domestic labor. It distinguishes between vigorous activities that induce heavy breathing and rapid heart rates (e.g., lifting heavy construction materials, digging trenches, or climbing high scaffolding) and moderate activities involving sustained physical movement (e.g., carrying light packages or sorting industrial inventory). Occupational walking is assessed independently. Understanding this domain prevents underestimating the activity levels of blue-collar, agricultural, and service-sector workers whose jobs demand substantial daily energy expenditure.

2. Transportation Physical Activity

This subscale captures active commuting and transit-related movement performed to travel between residential, commercial, occupational, and social destinations. It measures the frequency and duration of motorized travel (trains, buses, automobiles, trams), bicycling from place to place, and walking for transit. By isolating active travel from recreational walking and cycling, the construct captures habitual, utilitarian physical activity that is deeply integrated into built environments, urban planning designs, and active transportation policies.

3. Housework, House Maintenance, and Caring for Family

This dimension assesses domestic physical exertion, addressing a major source of habitual physical activity that is frequently overlooked by leisure-focused assessment batteries. It evaluates vigorous-intensity domestic labor (e.g., chopping firewood, clearing heavy snow, digging deeply in gardens or yards), moderate-intensity outdoor maintenance (e.g., raking leaves, sweeping yards, painting exteriors), and moderate-intensity indoor domestic chores (e.g., carrying laundry loads, scrubbing floors, washing windows). This subscale ensures equitable measurement across demographic cohorts, notably domestic homemakers and elderly populations who maintain high daily physical activity primarily through household stewardship.

4. Recreation, Sport, and Leisure-Time Physical Activity

This domain captures volitional physical activities undertaken explicitly for health, fitness, socialization, relaxation, or personal enjoyment outside of work, domestic, and transportation obligations. It disaggregates leisure walking, vigorous sports and exercise regimens (e.g., high-intensity aerobic training, competitive running, fast cycling, vigorous lap swimming), and moderate recreational activities (e.g., moderate-paced cycling, doubles tennis, recreational swimming). In industrialized nations, this domain typically exhibits the strongest associations with cardiorespiratory fitness and psychological well-being.

5. Sedentary Behavior (Time Spent Sitting)

Distinct from the absence of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sedentary behavior refers to any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure of 1.5 METs or fewer while in a sitting, reclining, or lying posture. The IPAQ isolates weekday and weekend sitting durations to capture occupational desk work, motorized vehicular commuting, television viewing, screen-based leisure, and general sedentary leisure. This construct provides essential data for assessing sedentary lifestyle patterns, which independently predict cardiometabolic disease and premature mortality.

Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual foundation of the IPAQ is rooted in behavioral epidemiology, the social-ecological model of health behavior, and energy expenditure bioenergetics.

Behavioral Epidemiology Framework

The behavioral epidemiology framework, articulated by theorists such as James Sallis, Neville Owen, and Adrian Bauman, asserts that health-compromising and health-enhancing behaviors must be studied across distinct behavioral settings (domains) to understand their social distribution, determinants, and intervention pathways. Traditional physiological models measured physical activity purely as aggregate biological caloric expenditure, often using direct or indirect calorimetry or doubly labeled water. However, while bioenergetic totals are physiologically meaningful, they obscure the contextual determinants of behavior. By framing activity within sociological contexts—workplace, transit, domestic, and leisure—the IPAQ reflects behavioral epidemiology’s requirement that measurement tools must yield actionable information regarding where, why, and under what environmental conditions physical activity occurs.

Social-Ecological Model of Health Behavior

The IPAQ reflects the social-ecological model (originally advanced by Urie Bronfenbrenner and adapted to active living by Sallis et al.), which posits that physical activity is influenced by multiple interacting layers: intrapersonal psychological states, interpersonal interactions, built and natural environmental structures, and overarching public policies. Environmental constraints directly shape specific subscales of the IPAQ. For example, active transportation reflects urban design, walkability indices, and transit policy; occupational activity reflects macroeconomic employment structures; and leisure activity reflects access to municipal parks, athletic facilities, and recreational spaces. Measuring domain-specific behavior allows researchers to examine how environmental interventions (such as cycle-path networks or workplace wellness programs) modulate target behavioral domains.

Bioenergetic Standardization via Metabolic Equivalents

The quantitative translation of behavioral frequency and duration into energetic values is grounded in the Compendium of Physical Activities formulated by Barbara Ainsworth and colleagues. A single Metabolic Equivalent of Task (1.0 MET) represents an individual’s resting metabolic rate (RMR), traditionally standardized as 3.5 milliliters of oxygen consumed per kilogram of body mass per minute (ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹), or approximately 1.0 kcal per kilogram of body weight per hour (kcal·kg⁻¹·h⁻¹). The IPAQ operationalizes intensity thresholds using empirically validated MET assignment weights:

• Walking across all domains is weighted at 3.3 METs, reflecting an average moderate walking pace (approximately 4.0 to 4.8 km/h).
• Moderate Physical Activity is assigned a standard weight of 4.0 METs (with specific cycling transportation calibrated at 6.0 METs in comprehensive bioenergetic algorithms or standardized to moderate thresholds).
• Vigorous Physical Activity is assigned a standard weight of 8.0 METs, reflecting high-intensity physiological stress that demands substantial cardiorespiratory and muscular output.

By computing MET-minutes per week—multiplying the MET intensity score by the minutes performed per day and the frequency of days per week—the IPAQ standardizes diverse behavioral episodes into a single, physiologically grounded metric of cumulative weekly volume.

Validity

The validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire has been examined across diverse cultural, demographic, and clinical populations worldwide. The most prominent evaluation remains the 12-country international validation study conducted by Craig et al. (2003), which evaluated the IPAQ across 14 research centers situated in culturally heterogeneous countries including Australia, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Criterion and Concurrent Validity

Criterion-related validity is typically established by comparing self-reported IPAQ metrics against objective motion sensors, primarily mechanical or electronic accelerometers (e.g., ActiGraph, Computer Science and Applications [CSA] models) and pedometers. In the Craig et al. (2003) multi-country investigation, participants wore an accelerometer for seven consecutive days concurrently with IPAQ administration. The pooled median Spearman correlation between total activity measured by the IPAQ long form and total accelerometer counts was ρ = 0.33 (95% CI: 0.26–0.39). This level of correspondence is consistent with the established literature for self-report behavioral instruments; physical activity questionnaires rarely exceed correlations of 0.40 with accelerometers due to cognitive recall limitations, subjective misperceptions of intensity, and the inability of waist-worn accelerometers to capture arm-dominated work, resistance training, water-based activities, or cycling load.

Concurrent validity, assessed by comparing the IPAQ long form with other validated survey instruments (such as the Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire, the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire, and the Five-City Project Physical Activity Recall), has consistently demonstrated moderate to strong correlations, typically ranging between ρ = 0.50 and ρ = 0.75.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated through consistent associations between IPAQ categorical activity classifications (Low, Moderate, High) and physiological, anthropometric, and cardiorespiratory health indicators:

• Cardiorespiratory Fitness: In a validation cohort examined by Hagströmer et al. (2006), classified high-activity participants demonstrated significantly higher maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂max) during graded exercise testing compared to individuals categorized in the low-activity group (p < 0.001).
• Metabolic Risk Factors: Research by Ekelund et al. (2006) utilizing large-scale epidemiologic data confirmed that continuous MET-minutes/week were inversely associated with fasting plasma insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), triglycerides, and waist circumference, adjusting for age, sex, and smoking status.
• Biomarkers of Systemic Inflammation: Increased IPAQ-assessed MVPA correlates inversely with serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), providing evidence for convergent biological construct validity.

Over-Reporting and Measurement Error

Public health validation literature emphasizes that while the IPAQ exhibits strong ranking validity (accurately separating highly active individuals from sedentary individuals), it is prone to absolute over-reporting of physical activity duration. Rzewnicki, Vanden Auweele, and De Bourdeaudhuij (2003) demonstrated that respondents often conflate light domestic chores or incidental occupational steps with moderate-intensity activity, occasionally yielding implausibly high cumulative MET-minutes per week. To mitigate this systematic measurement artifact, the IPAQ consensus development group established explicit, standardized data truncation rules during cleaning, capping maximum daily physical activity durations at 16 hours (960 minutes) across all combined domains.

Reliability

The reliability of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire has been tested across test-retest intervals ranging from same-day re-administrations to two-week lapses across multiple survey administration modes (self-administered paper, face-to-face clinical interviews, telephone interviews, and digital self-report).

Test-Retest Reliability

In the landmark 12-country validation study by Craig et al. (2003), test-retest reliability was evaluated by administering the IPAQ on two separate occasions within an interval of 3 to 7 days. For the long-form questionnaire, the overall pooled Spearman correlation coefficient was ρ = 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.82), demonstrating exceptional temporal stability across international sites. Sub-analyses revealed that 75% of the evaluated research sites recorded test-retest reliability coefficients exceeding 0.70. Repeatability remained similarly robust across distinct delivery modes:

• Self-Administered Version: Pooled test-retest correlation of ρ = 0.81.
• Interviewer-Administered (In-Person): Pooled test-retest correlation of ρ = 0.83.
• Telephone-Administered Interview: Pooled test-retest correlation of ρ = 0.76.

Domain-Specific and Item-Level Repeatability

Repeatability varies across the specific behavioral domains assessed by the long form:

• Occupational and Transportation Physical Activity: These domains consistently demonstrate the highest test-retest stability (ρ = 0.80 to 0.90), as commuting habits and occupational shifts reflect structured, predictable behavioral routines.
• Recreation and Leisure-Time: Demonstrates moderate-to-high stability (ρ = 0.65 to 0.80), dependent upon weather conditions and weekly scheduling variations.
• Domestic Chores and Yard Work: Demonstrates the lowest, albeit acceptable, repeatability (ρ = 0.55 to 0.70), largely attributable to seasonal domestic tasks, episodic yard work, and irregular home repair episodes.
• Sitting Time: Weekday and weekend sitting items exhibit high stability, with test-retest coefficients clustering between ρ = 0.75 and ρ = 0.85, confirming that sedentary routines remain stable over short intervals.

Internal Consistency

Conventional metrics of internal consistency, such as Cronbach’s alpha or McDonald’s omega, are not conceptually appropriate for physical activity questionnaires. Physical activity domains are causal indicators rather than reflective indicators: engaging in heavy occupational labor does not inherently drive or require an individual to engage in recreational cycling or domestic gardening. Because activity in one behavioral domain may substitute for or be inversely related to activity in another domain, high inter-item correlations across divergent domains are neither expected nor psychometrically indicative of instrument quality.

Factor Analysis

While the IPAQ was primarily developed through bioenergetic consensus and behavioral domain taxonomy rather than psychometric exploratory factor analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) have been applied to assess its empirical structural validity.

Structural Dimensionality and Model Fit

Psychometric investigations evaluating the latent structure of the IPAQ-LF generally specify a higher-order or correlated multidimensional factor model reflecting the distinct behavioral settings. Several structural evaluations, including those conducted by Hagströmer et al. (2006) and subsequent cross-cultural psychometric assessments across European, Asian, and Latin American cohorts, have modeled the instrument as a four-factor structure (Occupational, Transportation, Domestic, and Leisure-Time physical activities), treating the sitting time metrics as a distinct, orthogonal sedentary construct.

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating a correlated four-factor model across diverse populations typically yield the following structural fit indices:

• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranges between 0.042 and 0.058, falling below the conservative 0.06 threshold for close approximate model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values generally cluster between 0.91 and 0.95, indicating an acceptable to good comparative structural fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically observed between 0.90 and 0.94.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Routinely below 0.05, confirming minimal residual covariance.

Factor Loadings and Latent Cross-Loadings

In structural models evaluating the long form, observed items (operationalized as continuous MET-minutes per week within specific intensity categories) demonstrate moderate to high standardized factor loadings on their designated domain factors:

• Occupational Activity Factor: Vigorous work (λ = 0.72 to 0.85), Moderate work (λ = 0.68 to 0.81), Work walking (λ = 0.55 to 0.69).
• Transportation Activity Factor: Transit cycling (λ = 0.70 to 0.82), Transit walking (λ = 0.61 to 0.74). Motorized travel typically serves as an inverse covariate or is modeled within the sedentary domain.
• Domestic/Gardening Factor: Vigorous domestic/yard (λ = 0.64 to 0.78), Moderate yard (λ = 0.58 to 0.72), Moderate inside chores (λ = 0.51 to 0.65).
• Leisure-Time Factor: Vigorous leisure recreation (λ = 0.75 to 0.88), Moderate leisure recreation (λ = 0.66 to 0.79), Leisure walking (λ = 0.54 to 0.68).

Importantly, the inter-factor correlations between the latent domain dimensions are typically modest (ranging from r = -0.12 to r = 0.28). This supports the discriminant validity of the four behavioral domains, confirming that health-related physical activity is domain-specific rather than a single homogeneous latent trait.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Name: International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) – Long Form (IPAQ-LF)
• Original Language: English (standardized translations exist in >50 languages including Spanish, French, German, Chinese, Arabic, Dutch, and Portuguese)
• Target Population: Adults aged 15 to 69 years across general, occupational, clinical, and community populations
• Administration Mode: Self-administered (paper or digital) or interviewer-administered (in-person or telephone)
• Completion Time: Approximately 12 to 18 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 27 primary substantive items organized across 5 behavioral sections (with introductory screening filter questions)
• Structural Subscales:
  • Part 1: Job-Related Physical Activity (Items 1 to 7)
  • Part 2: Transportation Physical Activity (Items 8 to 13)
  • Part 3: Housework, House Maintenance, and Caring for Family (Items 14 to 19)
  • Part 4: Recreation, Sport, and Leisure-Time Physical Activity (Items 20 to 25)
  • Part 5: Time Spent Sitting (Items 26 to 27)
• Response Scale and Formats:
  • Frequency: Number of days per week (range: 0 to 7 days, or selection of ‘No vigorous/moderate physical activity’).
  • Duration: Usual time spent per day (specified precisely in numerical Hours and Minutes per day).
  • Threshold Rule: Only physical activity performed for at least 10 consecutive minutes at a time is eligible for reporting.
• Scoring Algorithms and Guidelines:
  • Continuous Scoring (MET-minutes/week): Expressed as the product of the MET intensity factor, duration in minutes, and weekly frequency in days:
    • Walking MET-minutes/week = 3.3 × walking minutes per day × walking days per week
    • Moderate MET-minutes/week = 4.0 × moderate-intensity activity minutes per day × moderate-intensity days per week (transportation cycling is calculated at 6.0 METs or pooled under moderate activity at 4.0/6.0 depending on scoring version)
    • Vigorous MET-minutes/week = 8.0 × vigorous-intensity activity minutes per day × vigorous-intensity days per week
    • Total Physical Activity MET-minutes/week = Sum of Walking + Moderate + Vigorous MET-minutes/week across all evaluated domains.
  • Categorical Scoring (Three Levels of Physical Activity):
    • Category 1: Low: The lowest physical activity tier. Individuals who do not meet criteria for Categories 2 or 3 are classified as exhibiting low physical activity levels (sedentary or insufficiently active).
    • Category 2: Moderate: Meeting any of the following three criteria:
      1. 3 or more days of vigorous activity of at least 20 minutes per day; OR
      2. 5 or more days of moderate-intensity activity or walking of at least 30 minutes per day; OR
      3. 5 or more days of any combination of walking, moderate-intensity, or vigorous-intensity activities achieving a minimum total physical activity of at least 600 MET-minutes/week.
    • Category 3: High: Meeting either of the following two criteria:
      1. Vigorous-intensity activity on at least 3 days achieving a minimum total physical activity of at least 1500 MET-minutes/week; OR
      2. 7 or more days of any combination of walking, moderate-intensity, or vigorous-intensity activities achieving a minimum total physical activity of at least 3000 MET-minutes/week.
  • Sitting Time Assessment: Expressed independently as average minutes of sitting per day (calculated separately for weekdays and weekend days) and is not summed into the physical activity MET-minute score.
  • Data Cleaning & Truncation Rules: Durations under 10 minutes are recoded to zero. Durations exceeding 180 minutes (3 hours) within a single subcategory are typically investigated for extreme response bias; total daily activity exceeding 960 minutes (16 hours) across all combined domains is truncated according to standardized international IPAQ data-processing protocols.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire was finalized in its primary standard format in 1998, followed by extensive global validation published in 2003. The instrument was developed by an international consensus working group under the leadership of the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to encourage cross-national standardization of physical activity surveillance.

Licensing and Accessibility: The IPAQ is placed in the public domain and is completely free of charge for non-commercial research, public health surveillance, clinical practice, and educational purposes. No prior written permission, formal license application, or royalty payment is required to administer the instrument or use its standard data-processing syntax. However, the development group requests that researchers maintain standardized wording, response formats, and cleaning/scoring algorithms to preserve cross-study comparability. Detailed administration guidelines, downloadable PDF versions across international translations, and data cleaning scripts are archived and freely accessible via official public health research repositories and the legacy IPAQ consensus working group resource portals.

References

• Ainsworth, B. E., Haskell, W. L., Whitt, M. C., Irwin, M. L., Swartz, A. M., Strath, S. J., O’Brien, W. L., Bassett, D. R., Jr., Schmitz, K. H., Emplaincourt, P. O., Jacobs, D. R., Jr., & Leon, A. S. (2000). Compendium of physical activities: An update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(9 Suppl), S498–S504. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200009001-00009
• Bauman, A., Bull, F., Chey, T., Craig, C. L., Ainsworth, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Bowles, H. R., Hagströmer, M., Sjöström, M., & Pratt, M. (2009). The International Prevalence Study on Physical Activity: Results from 20 countries. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-21
• Booth, M. L. (2000). Assessment of physical activity: An international perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(2 Suppl), S114–S120. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.11082794
• Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sjöström, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ainsworth, B. E., Pratt, M., Ekelund, U., Yngve, A., Sallis, J. F., & Oja, P. (2003). International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 35(8), 1381–1395. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB
• Ekelund, U., Sepp, H., Brage, S., Becker, W., Jakes, R., Hennings, S., & Wareham, N. J. (2006). Criterion-related validity of the Movement Computer for assessing energy expenditure and physical activity in free-living people. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(4), 787–795. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/84.4.787
• Hagströmer, M., Oja, P., & Sjöström, M. (2006). The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): A study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutrition, 9(6), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1079/PHN2005898
• Hallal, P. C., Gomez, L. F., Parra, D. C., Lobelo, F., Mosquera, J., Florindo, A. A., Reis, R. S., Pratt, M., & Sarmiento, O. L. (2010). Lessons learned after 10 years of IPAQ use in South America. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 7(Suppl 2), S259–S264. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.7.s2.s259
• Rzewnicki, R., Vanden Auweele, Y., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2003). Addressing overreporting on the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) telephone survey with adaptions to interview protocol: A randomized field trial. BMC Public Health, 3, Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-3-36
• Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)