Validity of 24-h Physical Activity Recall: Physical Activity Measurement Survey
Validity of 24-h Physical Activity Recall: Physical Activity Measurement Survey
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0000000000000314
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
Carriquiry, Alicia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Welk, Gregory J.;Kim, Youngwon;Carriquiry, Alicia
目的：本研究的主要目的是评估访谈者管理的24小时体力活动回忆（PAR）与SenseWear臂带（SWA）在估计成人代表性样本中的能量消耗（EE）和中至剧烈体力活动（MVPA）方面的有效性。第二个目标是比较不同人口统计亚组（性别、年龄和体重状况）的测量误差。方法：1347名成年人（20-71岁，786名女性）佩戴SWA一天，然后完成PAR，回忆前一天的身体活动。参与者在两年的时间跨度中随机选择两天进行两次试验。每个参与者的EE和MVPA值在2天内取平均值。群体水平和个人水平的一致性分别使用95%等效检验和平均绝对误差百分比进行评估。结果进一步按性别、年龄和体重指数进行亚组检查。结果：PAR对几乎所有人口统计亚组产生了相同的EE估计（与SWA相比），但对MVPA的比较都不相等。在所有比较中，EE的平均绝对百分比误差值（范围从10.3%到15.0%）小于MVPA的平均绝对百分比误差值（范围从68.6%到269.5%）。PAR对较年轻、较不肥胖的人的MVPA估计过低，但对较年长、较肥胖的人的MVPA估计过高。结论：对于情感表达的测量，PAR与SWA表现出良好的一致性。然而，PAR的使用可能导致在成人群体和个人水平上对MVPA的估计有偏差。
Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of an interviewer-administered, 24-h physical activity recall (PAR) compared with that of the SenseWear Armband (SWA) for estimation of energy expenditure (EE) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in a representative sample of adults. A secondary goal was to compare measurement errors for various demographic subgroups (gender, age, and weight status). Methods: A sample of 1347 adults (20-71 yr, 786 females) wore an SWA for a single day and then completed a PAR, recalling the previous day's physical activity. The participants each performed two trials on two randomly selected days across a 2-yr time span. The EE and MVPA values for each participant were averaged across the 2 d. Group-level and individual-level agreement were evaluated using 95% equivalence testing and mean absolute percent error, respectively. Results were further examined for subgroups by gender, age, and body mass index. Results: The PAR yielded equivalent estimates of EE (compared with those in the SWA) for almost all demographic subgroups, but none of the comparisons for MVPA were equivalent. Smaller mean absolute percent error values were observed for EE (ranges from 10.3% to 15.0%) than those for MVPA (ranges from 68.6% to 269.5%) across all comparisons. The PAR yielded underestimates of MVPA for younger, less obese people but overestimates for older, more obese people. Conclusions: For EE measurement, the PAR demonstrated good agreement relative to the SWA. However, the use of PAR may result in biased estimates of MVPA both at the group and individual level in adults.