Measuring Older Adults' Sedentary Time: Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness
Measuring Older Adults' Sedentary Time: Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e31821b94f7
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Owen, Neville
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gardiner, Paul A.;Clark, Bronwyn K.;Owen, Neville
首页--期刊主要分类--期刊细介绍--期刊题录与文摘--期刊详细文摘内容测量老年人的久坐时间：信度、效度和反应性。地中海医院。SCI。《体育运动》，第43卷，第11期，第2127-2133页，2011年。目的：有证据表明，久坐对健康有害，减少久坐时间是一个潜在的重要预防健康目标。评估久坐行为干预的效果需要高质量的措施，特别是针对老年人的措施，老年人是最爱久坐的人群群体。我们检查了一份自我报告的久坐行为问卷的可靠性、效度和对变化的反应性，该问卷评估了老年人在常见行为上花费的时间：看电视、使用电脑、阅读、社交、交通工具和爱好，以及一个总结衡量标准(总久坐时间)。方法：在久坐行为干预的背景下，48名非工作老年人(年龄=73+/-8岁(平均+/-8岁))在2周期间(服药间隔7天)三次完成问卷调查，并佩戴加速计(GT1M型)，为期6天。在干预前1周期间，使用Spearman(RHO)相关和95%可信区间(CI)评估重测信度(单个项目和摘要测量)和效度(自我报告的总久坐时间与加速计得出的久坐时间比较)。使用响应性统计(RS)评估干预后对变化的响应性。结果：重测信度在看电视时间(Rho(95%CI)=0.78(0.63~0.89))、使用电脑(Rho(95%CI)=0.90(0.83~0.94))和阅读(Rho(95%CI)=0.77(0.62~0.86))方面较好；在爱好方面(Rho(95%CI)=0.61(0.39~0.76))可接受；在社交和交通方面(Rho<；0.45)较差。总坐着时间具有可接受的重测信度(Rho(95%CI)=0.52(0.27~0.70))和效度(Rho(95%CI)=0.30(0.02~0.54))。自我报告的总久坐时间对变化的反应(RS=0.47)与加速计得出的久坐时间(RS=0.39)相似。结论：总久坐时间的汇总测量具有良好的重复性和适度的效度，并对变化有足够的反应，这表明它适合用于老年人的干预。
GARDINER, P. A., B. K. CLARK, G. N. HEALY, E. G. EAKIN, E. A. H. WINKLER, and N. OWEN. Measuring Older Adults' Sedentary Time: Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 43, No. 11, pp. 2127-2133, 2011. Purpose: With evidence that prolonged sitting has deleterious health consequences, decreasing sedentary time is a potentially important preventive health target. High-quality measures, particularly for use with older adults, who are the most sedentary population group, are needed to evaluate the effect of sedentary behavior interventions. We examined the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change of a self-report sedentary behavior questionnaire that assessed time spent in behaviors common among older adults: watching television, computer use, reading, socializing, transport and hobbies, and a summary measure (total sedentary time). Methods: In the context of a sedentary behavior intervention, nonworking older adults (n = 48, age = 73 +/- 8 yr (mean +/- SD)) completed the questionnaire on three occasions during a 2-wk period (7 d between administrations) and wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph model GT1M) for two periods of 6 d. Test-retest reliability (for the individual items and the summary measure) and validity (self-reported total sedentary time compared with accelerometer-derived sedentary time) were assessed during the 1-wk preintervention period, using Spearman (rho) correlations and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Responsiveness to change after the intervention was assessed using the responsiveness statistic (RS). Results: Test-retest reliability was excellent for television viewing time (rho (95% CI) = 0.78 (0.63-0.89)), computer use (rho (95% CI) = 0.90 (0.83-0.94)), and reading (rho (95% CI) = 0.77 (0.62-0.86)); acceptable for hobbies (rho (95% CI) = 0.61 (0.39-0.76)); and poor for socializing and transport (rho < 0.45). Total sedentary time had acceptable test-retest reliability (rho (95% CI) = 0.52 (0.27-0.70)) and validity (rho (95% CI) = 0.30 (0.02-0.54)). Self-report total sedentary time was similarly responsive to change (RS = 0.47) as accelerometer-derived sedentary time (RS = 0.39). Conclusions: The summary measure of total sedentary time has good repeatability and modest validity and is sufficiently responsive to change suggesting that it is suitable for use in interventions with older adults.