Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     Please specify in the methodology whether this is a secondary analysis of the previously published study.

2.     Could the authors provide further details on how the direct observations by trained research staff were conducted?

3.     Can the authors clarify the criteria used for classifying subjects into skilled versus unskilled labor?

4.     It is intriguing that the Leisure domain contributed "0" MET-min/week. Do the authors provide any explanation for this finding?

 

5.     In the limitations section, the authors mention that "the validity of this modified GPAQ was studied only among women, and the results cannot be generalized to men who engage in different activities compared to women." However, they previously stated that 52.6% of the participants were women, and the remaining participants were men.

Author Response

Please see attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This report on modified global physical activity questionnaire (GPAQ) aimed to address complications associated with physical inactivity which is considered to be a global “pandemic”. The paper discusses construct validity of modified GPAQ among adults in Kerala, India. The approach is designed to be locality-specific and incorporates metabolic equivalent task-based activities into the original GPAQ. The results show good agreement between theoretical constructs and  predictions. I found no obvious scientific issues with study, results or conclusions. I recommend the publication of the article in the present form.

minor comments.

line 108: physical activity is missing in moderate to vigorous physical activity 

Author Response

Please see attached document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx