Detailled Information

Name of the Instrument/Tool Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (SQUASH)
First Description

Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D. Reproducibility and relative validity of the Short Questionnaire To Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1163–9.

Year 2003
Domains
Concept of constructs Self reported habitual physical activity
Population/Disease Generic
Originally developed for ---
Other rheumatic diseases
where can be applied (only if validated)
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), Osteoarthritis (OA), Spondyloarthritis
Additional population with no rheumatic diseases No
Language: Originally published in Dutch
Available in Language Turkish, English, Japanese
REFERENCE IDENTIFICATION
Author/s Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D
Title Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity
Journal J Clin Epidemiol.
Year 2003
Vol 56
Num 12
Pages 1163-9.
Country The Netherlands
Language Dutch
Other references of interest
Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27575490/
Brief Description

Validation of the SQUASH Physical Activity Questionnaire in a multi-ethnic population: the HELIUS study

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21840174/
Brief Description

The SQUASH was a more valid tool than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch physical activity and the combined guideline

Link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33091242/
Brief Description

 Self-Report Measures of Physical Activity

Instrument/Tool Translations References
No other References.
DEVELOPER CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondence to GC Wanda Wendel-Vos
E-Mail wanda.Vos@rivm.nl
Address Department for Chronic Diseases Epidemiology, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands
Website ---
Available ---
Links ---
DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT
Type Of Measure Questionnaire
Brief Description

The SQUASH measures the habitual activities in a normal week over the past months.

The SQUASH contains five subdomains: 1) commuting activities, 2) activity at work or school, 3) household activities, 4) leisure-time activities, and 5) sports. The domains of commuting, work or school, and household activities each have two items, the leisure-time domain has four items, and the sports domain can include up to four sports activities indicated by the respondent.

Number of Items 14 items, each subdomain has a “not applicable” option as an item.
Range ---
Responses options/scale Yes
Individuals respond with the number of days per week and average time per day (hours and minutes) spent on each activity within each subdomain.
Developed for ---
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Method of administration Self-administered
Recommendations to score

Scoring is completed by taking a sum of the time spent active in each domain in total minutes and multiplying by the intensity score. Activities are divided into three intensity categories based on Ainsworth's compendium of physical activities: 2.0 to less than 4.0 METs (light), 4.0 to less than 6.5 METs (moderate), and greater than or equal to 6.5 METs (vigorous). Some studies have used different intensity categories for older adults: 2.0 to less than 3.0 METs (light), 3.0 to less than 5.0 METs (moderate), greater than or equal to 5.0 METs (vigorous). Activities with an MET score below 2.0 are not counted.

The SQUASH does not estimate energy expenditure but does estimate habitual activity in an average week for individuals.

Score Interpretation Higher scores indicate higher physical activity
Cut-off points ---
Cut-off points applied to ---
Smallest detectable change if described ---
Smallest detectable change applied to ---
Completion time by the patient <5 minutes
Scoring time by the assessor <5 minutes
Training to score Not necessary
Strengths Useful in clinical practice & research, Easy to use
Limitations ---
OTHER COMMENTS
Other Comments

The SQUASH has limited use among individuals with rheumatic and MSK conditions. There are low correlations with objective measures of PA and mixed results on reliability. There is no evidence on sensitivity to changes/responsiveness, and the measure has limited use in RCTs