Test-retest reliability of adult surveillance measures for physical activity and inactivity
Test-retest reliability of adult surveillance measures for physical activity and inactivity
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2005.02.005
复制
发表时间：
2005-06-01
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
McGinn, AP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Evenson, KR;McGinn, AP
背景：美国监测系统中使用的几种身体活动测量方法缺乏对该国可靠性的估计。不同的女性和男性人群都需要这些信息，以帮助解释和使用这些措施。本研究的目的是记录不同成年人群监测中使用的身体活动和不活动的几种测量指标的重测可靠性。方法：2003 年，通过电话对居住在北卡罗来纳州福赛斯县或密西西比州杰克逊的 106 名非裔美国人和白人女性和男性进行了测试和重测调查。使用监测措施（例如行为风险因素监测系统）对身体活动和不活动进行自我报告。可靠性是通过总体上的 kappa 和组内相关系数 (ICC) 以及按性别和种族分别确定的。结果：13% 的参与者达到了体育活动的建议，44% 的参与者活动不足，43% 的参与者不活动。将参与者分为这些类别的措施的可靠性为 0.44（95% 置信区间 [CI] =0.27-0.58）。休闲活动的几个分类定义的可靠性在 0.46 到 0.68 之间。职业活动具有显着的可靠性（0.82，95% CI=0.72-0.89），而任何交通活动（0.27，95% CI=0.09-0.44）和步行（0.40，95% CI=0.23-0.55）较低。每周> 7小时的不活动指标包括每周使用电脑的时间（0.83，95% CI=0.57-0.78）和每周看电视的时间（0.40，95% CI=0.22-0.54）。可靠性估计中注意到了一些性别和种族差异。结论：总而言之，本研究提供了用于监测目的的几种体力活动和不活动测量的重测可靠性估计。有效性数据，加上此处和其他地方报告的可靠性估计，可以帮助在监测和流行病学研究中解释和使用这些措施。 (c) 2005 年美国预防医学杂志。
Background: Several physical activity measures used in U.S. surveillance systems lack estimates of reliability in this country. This information is needed among diverse populations of women and men, to aid in interpretation and use of the measures. The objective of this study was to document the test-retest reliability of several measures of physical activity and inactivity used in surveillance in a diverse adult population.Methods: Test and retest surveys were conducted over the telephone with 106 African-American and white women and men living in Forsyth County, North Carolina or Jackson, Mississippi in 2003. Physical activity and inactivity were self-reported using surveillance measures, such as from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Reliability was determined using kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) overall and separately by gender and race.Results: Thirteen percent of the participants met recommendations for physical activity, 44% were insufficiently active, and 43% were inactive. Reliability of the measures to categorize participants into these categories was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI] =0.27-0.58). The reliability of several categoric definitions of leisure activity ranged from 0.46 to 0.68. Occupational activity had substantial reliability (0.82, 95% CI=0.72-0.89), while any transportation activity (0.27, 95% CI=0.09-0.44) and walking (0.40, 95% CI=0.23-0.55) were lower. Indicators of inactivity categorized at > 7 hours/week included time per week on the computer (0.83, 95% CI=0.57-0.78) and time per week watching television (0.40, 95% CI=0.22-0.54). Some gender and racial differences were noted in the reliability estimates.Conclusions: In conclusion, this study provides estimates of test-retest reliability for several physical activity and inactivity measures used for surveillance purposes. Validity data, coupled with the reliability estimates reported here and elsewhere, can aid in interpretation and use of these measures in surveillance, as well as in epidemiologic studies. (c) 2005 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.