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。
