Objectives: We aimed to test the reliability and structural validity (also called dimensionality) of the online Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index among college students from low-income regions.Methods: We assessed 195 Brazilian college students from a low-income region (Gini index of 0.56), of whom 117 were reassessed to evaluate the reliability. We collected all data in a self-reported online twice, 2-week apart. We evaluated reliability and structural validity.Results: All questionnaire components showed reliability, correlation coefficient ≥0.49. In the structural validity, the confirmatory analysis showed better global model adjustment for the one-factor (RMSEA = 0.019; SRMR = 0.041; CFI = 0.992; TLI = 0.986) solution compared with two-factor (RMSEA = 0.099; SRMR = 0.070; CFI = 0.764; TLI = 0.619) and three-factor (RMSEA = 0.108; SRMR = 0.066; CFI = 0.763; TLI = 0.548) solutions, respectively.Discussion: The online questionnaire presents acceptable reliability and structural validity in Brazilian low-income regions.

Introduction: Due to the restrictions imposed to control the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in studies based on online surveys. However, there are important concerns about the validity and generalizability of results from online surveys. Thus, we aimed to test the reliability and validity of the online version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF) among college students from low-income regions. Methods: This was a methodological feasibility study with a random stratified sample from a college located in the state of Maranhão in the city of Imperatriz (Brazil). The sample consisted of 195 college students (at least 17 years of age) to evaluate the validity and 117 students to evaluate the reliability. All data were collected in a self-reported online format (via Google Forms) twice, with an interval of 2 weeks. We used Spearman’s correlation analysis for the reliability study. Additionally, we applied exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the structural validity. Results: The questionnaire showed acceptable (rho > 0.30) and significant (p < 0.05) reliability, except for the question about the duration of sitting time on a weekend day. When assessing the construct validity (exploratory analysis), we identified a single factor that explained 88.8% of the variance. The 1-factor model showed acceptable model fit (SRMR = 0.039; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.90) in confirmatory analysis. Conclusions: The online version of the IPAQ-SF has acceptable reliability among college students from low-income regions and maintains the structure of the construct regarding to physical activity.

Background: Multicenter studies from Europe and the United States have developed specifically standardized questionnaires for assessing and comparing sedentary behavior, but they cannot be directly applied for South American countries. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the South American Youth Cardiovascular and Environmental (SAYCARE) sedentary behavior questionnaire. Methods: Children and adolescents from seven South American cities were involved in the test-retest reliability (children: n = 55; adolescents: n = 106) and concurrent validity (children: n = 93; adolescents: n = 94) studies. The SAYCARE sedentary behavior questionnaire was administered twice with two-week interval and the behaviors were parent-reported for children and self-reported for adolescents. Questions included time spent watching television, using a computer, playing console games, passive playing (only in children) and studying (only in adolescents) over the past week. Accelerometer was used for at least 3 days, including at least one weekend day. We compared values of sedentary time, using accelerometers, by quartiles of reported sedentary behavior time and their sum. Results: The reliability of sedentary behavior time was moderate for children (rho ≥0.45 and k ≥ 0.40) and adolescents (rho ≥0.30). Comparisons between the questionnaire and accelerometer showed a low overall agreement, with the questionnaire systematically underreporting sedentary time in children (at least, − 332.6 ± 138.5 min/day) and adolescents (at least, − 399.7 ± 105.0 min/day). Conclusion: The SAYCARE sedentary behavior questionnaire has acceptable reliability in children and adolescents. However, the findings of current study indicate that SAYCARE questionnaire is not surrogate of total sedentary time.