Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Workplace Sitting Time and Breaks in Sitting Time
Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Workplace Sitting Time and Breaks in Sitting Time
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e31821820a2
复制
发表时间：
2011-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Dunstan, David W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clark, Bronwyn K.;Thorp, Alicia A.;Dunstan, David W.
首页--期刊主要分类--期刊细介绍--期刊题录与文摘--期刊详细文摘内容自我报告的工作场所坐着时间和休息时间测量的有效性。地中海医院。SCI。《体育运动》，第43卷，第10期，1907-1912页，2011年。目的：为了了解工作场所久坐不动的患病率和潜在的健康影响，需要采取有效的措施。在这里，我们检验了一个简短的自我报告的工作场所坐着时间和坐着休息时间的测量标准的有效性。方法：对121名全职员工(男性占36%，平均年龄=37岁，办公室占53%)进行方便抽样，采用面试者问卷对工作场所坐着时间(H.D(-1))和每小时坐着休息的时间进行评估。将这些自我报告的测量结果与加速计得出的工作时间(每天的小时数，=每分钟100次)进行比较。结果：自我报告的坐姿时间与加速度计计算的坐姿时间显著相关(Pearson r=0.39，95%可信区间=0.22-0.53)，平均坐姿时间比平均坐姿时间高0.45H.D.(-1)。Bland-Altman曲线和回归分析显示，坐和坐时间的差异与坐和坐的平均时间呈正相关(平均差异=-2.75h+0.47x平均坐和坐的时间；同意限度=+/-2.25H.D(-1))。每坐小时自报休息时间与加速计计算的每坐小时休息时间之间的相关性也有统计学意义(S)=0.26，95%可信区间=0.11-0.44。结论：本研究首次使用客观的标准测量来检验面试者管理的关于工作场所坐着时间和坐着休息时间的问卷测量的标准效度。工作场所久坐测量具有可接受的特性，可用于与一组工人的久坐行为有关的观察性研究；然而，广泛的一致性范围表明，在高精度估计个人坐着时间时应谨慎行事。使用自我报告的方法来捕捉工作场所坐着的模式(例如坐着休息的时间)需要进一步的发展。
CLARK, B. K., A. A. THORP, E. A. H. WINKLER, P. A. GARDINER, G. N. HEALY, N. OWEN, and D. W. DUNSTAN. Validity of Self-Reported Measures of Workplace Sitting Time and Breaks in Sitting Time. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No. 10, pp. 1907-1912, 2011. Purpose: To understand the prevalence and potential health effect of prolonged workplace sedentary (sitting) time, valid measures are required. Here, we examined the criterion validity of a brief self-reported measure of workplace sitting time and breaks in sitting time. Methods: An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to assess workplace sitting time (h.d(-1)) and breaks from sitting per hour at work in a convenience sample of 121 full-time workers (36% men, mean age = 37 yr, 53% office based). These self-reported measures were compared with accelerometer-derived sedentary time (hours per day, = 100 counts per minute) during work hours. Results: Self-reported sitting time was significantly correlated with accelerometer-derived sedentary time (Pearson r = 0.39, 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.53), with an average sitting time 0.45 h.d(-1) higher than average sedentary time. Bland-Altman plots and regression analysis showed positive associations between the difference in sitting and sedentary time and the average of sitting and sedentary time (mean difference = -2.75 h + 0.47 x average sitting and sedentary time; limits of agreement = +/- 2.25 h.d(-1)). The correlation of self-reported breaks per sitting hour with accelerometer-derived breaks per sedentary hour was also statistically significant (Spearman r(s) = 0.26, 95% confidence interval = 0.11-0.44). Conclusions: This study is the first to examine the criterion validity of an interviewer-administered questionnaire measure of workplace sitting time and breaks in sitting time using objective criterion measures. The workplace sitting measure has acceptable properties for use in observational studies concerned with sedentary behavior in groups of workers; however, the wide limits of agreement suggest caution in estimating individuals' sitting time with high precision. Using self-reported measures to capture patterns of workplace sitting (such as breaks in sitting time) requires further development.