Edinburgh Research Explorer

The Taxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: Content analysis and systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions



  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Final published version, 1.15 MB, PDF document

    Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere013844
Pages (from-to)1-12
JournalBMJ Open
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2017


Objective: Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework.
Design: A framework, TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit, and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains.
Data Sources: Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion.
Eligibility Criteria for selecting studies: The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory.
Results: The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only 8 taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with both under and over estimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change.
Conclusions: Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus.

    Research areas

  • population surveillance , validation, sedentary behaviour, sitting , measurement

Download statistics

No data available

ID: 31010235