Validation of a Previous-Day Recall Measure of Active and Sedentary Behaviors
Validation of a Previous-Day Recall Measure of Active and Sedentary Behaviors
复制标题
DOI：
10.1249/mss.0b013e3182897690
复制
发表时间：
2013-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fowke, Jay H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matthews, Charles E.;Keadle, Sarah Kozey;Fowke, Jay H.
目的：与传统的基于问卷的体力活动和久坐行为(例如，过去一年)的估计相比，前一天回忆(PDR)可能是一种不太容易出错的替代方法，但该方法的有效性尚未确定。我们评估了采访者在青少年(12-17岁)和成人(18-71岁)中实施PDR的有效性。方法：在一项7天的研究中，参与者完成了三个PDR，佩戴了两个活动监测器，并完成了社会期望和身体质量指数的测量。通过使用测量误差建模和传统验证方法，将活动和静坐时间的PDR测量与加速计(Actigraph)进行比较，并将两者与有效的参考测量(ActialPAL)进行比较。结果：比较PDR和active PAL的年龄和性别混合模型显示：1)久坐时间(回归斜率，β(1)=0.80-1.13)与活动时间(β(1)=0.64-1.09)之间有很强的线性关系，2)个体的偏倚小于随机误差，3)相关性很高(久坐：r=0.60-0.81；活动：r=0.52-0.80)。报告错误与体重指数或社会期望无关。比较Actigraph和Activate PAL的模型表明：1)久坐(beta(1)=0.63-0.73)和活动时间(beta(1)=0.61-0.72)之间存在较弱的线性关系，(2)特定人的偏倚略大于随机误差，(3)相关性很高(久坐：r=0.68-0.77；活动：r=0.57-0.79)。结论：PDR与ACTIVATE PAL的相关性高，系统性报告误差低，PDR的效度与活动图相当。PDR在身体活动和健康的研究中可能有价值，特别是那些对测量与活动相关的行为的特定类型、位置和目的感兴趣的人。
Purpose: A previous-day recall (PDR) may be a less error-prone alternative to traditional questionnaire-based estimates of physical activity and sedentary behavior (e.g., past year), but the validity of the method is not established. We evaluated the validity of an interviewer administered PDR in adolescents (12-17 yr) and adults (18-71 yr). Methods: In a 7-d study, participants completed three PDR, wore two activity monitors, and completed measures of social desirability and body mass index. PDR measures of active and sedentary time was contrasted against an accelerometer (ActiGraph) by comparing both to a valid reference measure (activPAL) using measurement error modeling and traditional validation approaches. Results: Age- and sex-specific mixed models comparing PDR to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a strong linear relationship between measures for sedentary (regression slope, beta(1) = 0.80-1.13) and active time (beta(1) = 0.64-1.09), 2) person-specific bias was lower than random error, and 3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.60-0.81; active: r = 0.52-0.80). Reporting errors were not associated with body mass index or social desirability. Models comparing ActiGraph to activPAL indicated the following: 1) there was a weaker linear relationship between measures for sedentary (beta(1) = 0.63-0.73) and active time (beta(1) = 0.61-0.72), (2) person-specific bias was slightly larger than random error, and (3) correlations were high (sedentary: r = 0.68-0.77; active: r = 0.57-0.79). Conclusions: Correlations between the PDR and the activPAL were high, systematic reporting errors were low, and the validity of the PDR was comparable with the ActiGraph. PDR may have value in studies of physical activity and health, particularly those interested in measuring the specific type, location, and purpose of activity-related behaviors.