Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running
Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/01.mss.0000079078.62035.ec
复制
发表时间：
2003-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Froberg, K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brage, S;Wedderkopp, N;Froberg, K
目的：在实验室和现场评估 CSA（型号 7164）加速度计（MTI）在宽步行-跑步速度范围内的可靠性和有效性。方法：12 名男性受试者进行了 3 次跑步机步行/跑步训练和一项现场试验，采用相同的连续方案，包括从 3 至 6 km(.)h(-1)（步行）和 8 至 20 km(.)h(-1)（跑步），每次间隔 5 分钟逐渐增加速度。在现场试验中，该方案在 35 分钟（14 km(.)h(-1)）后终止，但试验随后延长，以自由选择的速度运行 5 公里。在这两种情况下，每个臀部都安装了两个 CSA，并在每个速度下测量步频。在最后两次跑步机训练中测量摄氧量 (VO(2)(.)kg(-1))。对平均 CSA 输出与速度、每公斤摄氧量和步频的关系进行了相关分析。结果：在所有试验中，CSA 输出随着速度的增加呈线性上升（R-2 = 0.92，P < 0.001），直至 9 km(.)h(-1)，但在跑步过程中仍保持在与 10,000 counts(.)min(-1) 相似的水平，因此在速度 > 9 km(.)h(-1) 时低估了每公斤 VO2。当假设线性关系时，估计误差随着速度的增加而增加，从 10 km(.)h(-1) 时的 11% (P < 0.01) 增加到 16 km(.)h(-1) 时的 48% (P < 0.001)。现场试验中自由选择的速度范围为 10.9 至 16.3 km(.)h(-1)。两种情况之间没有观察到 CSA 与速度关系的差异。受试者之间 CSA 输出的差异部分归因于步频差异（步行 R = -0.34 (P = 0.02)，跑步 R = -0.63 (P < 0.001)）。结论：在步行范围内，CSA 输出随速度线性增加，但在跑步时则不然，这可能是由于跑步时垂直加速度相对恒定。受试者间的可靠性与步频相关，因为 CSA 数据在较高的运动频率下被过滤最多。因此，在解释流行病学 CSA 数据时应考虑到这些局限性。
Purpose: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the CSA (model 7164) accelerometer (MTI) in a wide walking-running speed range in laboratory and field. Method: Twelve male subjects performed three treadmill walking/running sessions and one field trial with the same continuous protocol involving progressively increasing velocities at 5 min per interval from 3 to 6 km(.)h(-1) (walking) and 8 to 20 km(.)h(-1) (running). In the field trial, this protocol was terminated after 35 min (14 km(.)h(-1)), but the trial then extended with 5-km running at a freely chosen velocity. In both scenarios, two CSAs were mounted on each hip and the step frequency measured at each velocity. Oxygen uptake (VO(2)(.)kg(-1)) was measured on the last two treadmill sessions. Correlation analyses were performed for mean CSA output relationship with speed, VO2 per kilogram, and step frequency. Results: In all trials, CSA output rose linearly (R-2 = 0.92, P < 0.001) with increasing speed until 9 km(.)h(-1) but remained at similar to10,000 counts(.)min(-1) during running, thus underestimating VO2 per kilogram at speeds > 9 km(.)h(-1). Estimation errors increased with speed from 11% (P < 0.01) at 10 km(.)h(-1) to 48% (P < 0.001) at 16 km(.)h(-1), when assuming a linear relationship. Freely chosen velocities in the field trial ranged from 10.9 to 16.3 km(.)h(-1). No difference in the CSA-speed relationship was observed between the two scenarios. Differences in CSA output between subjects could partially be attributed to differences in step frequency (R = -0.34 (P = 0.02) for walking and R = -0.63 (P < 0.001) for running). Conclusion: CSA output increases linearly with speed in the walking range but not in running, presumably due to relatively constant vertical acceleration in running. Between-subject reliability was related to step frequency because CSA data are filtered most at higher movement frequencies. Epidemiological CSA data should thus be interpreted with these limitations in mind.