Comparison of the computerized ACTIVITYGRAM instrument and the previous day physical activity recall for assessing physical activity in children.
Comparison of the computerized ACTIVITYGRAM instrument and the previous day physical activity recall for assessing physical activity in children.
复制标题
比较计算机化的 ACTIVITYGRAM 仪器和前一天的身体活动回忆，以评估儿童的身体活动。
DOI：
10.1080/02701367.2004.10609170
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hill,JennieL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Welk,GregoryJ;Dzewaltowski,DavidA;Hill,JennieL
本研究比较了儿童的身体活动回忆，通过计算机化的评估（ACTIVITTYALITY），并通过流行的纸和铅笔评估（前一天的身体活动回忆; PDPAR）的有效性。共有来自两所学校的147名六年级儿童完成了两项回忆工具。两种自我报告仪器的数据都是在相同的3天内获得的，这些数据与佩戴基于加速度计的活动监测器的儿童子样本（n = 28）的数据在时间上相匹配。为了证实先前的有效性研究与PDPAR，一个更大的样本（n = 128）与匹配的数据PDPAR和加速度计也被使用。计算了三个时段（下午：下午3-6点，晚上：下午6-11点和下午/晚上：下午3-11点）从所有三种仪器记录的活动水平。描述性和相关性分析进行跨天和不同的时间段，以评估两个自我报告的工具。ACTIVTTYEARS和PDPAR报告的平均活动发作没有差异（p> 0.05）。与活动监测仪的相关性均在上述范围内。PDPAR和ACTIVITYEARS两者的关系均为50，并且对于两种测量，这些关系在不同的日期和时期是一致的。在两所学校的ACTIVITY比较中，相关性的大小变化很大（r = .80 vs. r = .20），但PDPAR没有变化，这表明对ACTIVITY工具的不同管理或理解。ACTIVITY和PDPAR测量之间的直接相关性很高（r =. 72），分类协议超过80%的学校提供了足够的援助和培训的活动。在工作人员支持较少的学校，结果较弱。本研究提供了收敛和标准的证据来支持的有效性的计算机活动评估，并建议类似的信息，纸和铅笔PDPAR评估幼儿。该研究还显示，当使用更简单的评分程序而不是传统的更复杂的基于代谢当量的方法时，PDPAR值或相关性没有差异。
This study compared the validity of children's physical activity recall through a computerized assessment (ACTIVITTYGRAM) and through a popular paper and pencil assessment (Previous Day Physical Activity Recall; PDPAR). A total of 147 sixth-grade children from two schools completed the two recall instruments. Data from both self-report instruments were obtained over the same 3 days, and these data were matched by time with data from a subsample of children who wore an accelerometry-based activity monitor (n = 28). To confirm previous validity research with the PDPAR, a larger sample (n = 128) with matched data on the PDPAR and the accelerometer were also used. Activity levels recorded from all three instruments were computed for three periods (afternoon: 3–6 pm, evening: 6–11 p.m. and afternoon/evening: 3–11 p.m.). Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted across days and for the separate time periods to evaluate the two self-report instruments. There were no differences in mean activity bouts reported on the ACTIVTTYGRAM and the PDPAR (p>.05). Ccrrelations with the activity monitor were above. 50 for both the PDPAR and the ACTIVITYGRAM, and the relationships were consistent across days and periods for both measures. The magnitude of the correlations varied widely in the two schools for the ACTIVITYGRAM comparisons (r = .80 vs. r = .20) but not for the PDPAR, suggesting differential administration or understanding of the ACTIVIYGRAM instrument. Direct correlations between the ACTIVITYGRAM and the PDPAR measures were high (r =. 72), and classification agreement exceeded 80% for the school that provided adequate assistance and training on the ACTIVITYGRAM. Results were weaker in the school with less staff support. This study provides convergent and criterion evidence to support the validity of the computerized ACTIVITYGRAM assessment and suggests similar information as the paper and pencil PDPAR assessment in young children. The study also revealed no differences in PDPAR values or associations, when a simpler scoring procedure was used instead of the traditional more complex metabolic equivalent-based approach.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122
发表时间：
1997-09-01
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Gollan, TH;Forster, KI;Frost, R
通讯作者：
Frost, R
影响因子：
--
作者：
MEYER, DE;SCHVANEVELDT, RW
通讯作者：
SCHVANEVELDT, RW
词汇决策和命名中短暂刺激开始异步时的图形、联想和句法启动效应
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1991
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
J. Sereno
通讯作者：
J. Sereno
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Perea, M;Rosa, E
通讯作者：
Rosa, E
我们可以从希伯来语的形态中学到什么？
DOI：
10.1037//0278-7393.23.4.829
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition
影响因子：
--
作者：
Frost,R;Forster,KI;Deutsch,A
通讯作者：
Deutsch,A