Allor K M, Pivarnik J M
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001 Apr;33(4):671-6. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200104000-00025.
The purpose of this study was to examine the stability and convergent validity of heart rate (HR) monitoring, Caltrac accelerometer, and physical activity recall (PAR) in sixth-grade girls during normal weekday activities.
46 sixth-grade girls (age 12 +/- 0.6) wore HR monitors and Caltrac accelerometers for 3 d during school, after school, and evenings. We also obtained a PAR for each day. Data were compared on the basis of kcal x h(-1).
Two days' worth of data were analyzed for each participant. Intraclass correlation coefficients obtained by use of repeated measures ANOVA revealed that HR monitoring (r = 0.99) and PAR (r = 0.98) were extremely stable across 2 d, whereas Caltrac was moderately stable (r = 0.76). Pearson correlations between techniques were HR versus PAR, r = 0.50 (P < 0.01), HR versus Caltrac, r = 0.28, and Caltrac versus PAR, r = 0.76 (P < 0.01). Methods comparison plots showed poor individual subject agreement between all three types of assessment.
HR and PAR were stable across 2 d. PAR underestimated caloric expenditure by approximately 14%. Caltrac showed the least utility in both reliability and validity.
本研究旨在检验六年级女生在正常工作日活动期间心率(HR)监测、Caltrac加速度计和体力活动回忆(PAR)的稳定性及收敛效度。
46名六年级女生(年龄12±0.6岁)在学校、放学后及晚上佩戴心率监测器和Caltrac加速度计3天。我们还获取了她们每天的PAR。数据以千卡×小时⁻¹为基础进行比较。
对每位参与者分析了两天的数据。通过重复测量方差分析得到的组内相关系数显示,HR监测(r = 0.99)和PAR(r = 0.98)在两天内极其稳定,而Caltrac加速度计的稳定性一般(r = 0.76)。各技术之间的Pearson相关性为:HR与PAR,r = 0.50(P < 0.01);HR与Caltrac,r = 0.28;Caltrac与PAR,r = 0.76(P < 0.01)。方法比较图显示,所有三种评估方式之间个体受试者的一致性较差。
HR和PAR在两天内是稳定的。PAR低估热量消耗约14%。Caltrac加速度计在可靠性和效度方面表现出的效用最低。