MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrookes Hospital, Box 285, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;45(11):859-65. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090190.
The aim of this review is to summarise issues surrounding the measurement of physical activity (PA) by self-report and accelerometry in youth (2-18 years old). Current levels and temporal trends in PA and sport participation and the effect of assessment method on data interpretation will be summarised.
Relevant papers were extracted from a computerised literature search of MEDLINE and personal databases. Additional papers were extracted from reference lists of recently published reviews.
The criterion validity (direct comparison with an objective method) of self-reported instruments is low to moderate, with correlation coefficients generally between 0.3 and 0.4. Self-report instruments overestimate the intensity and duration of PA and sport participation. The interpretation of PA data from accelerometry is a challenge, and specific issues include the definition of intensity thresholds and the influence of age on intensity thresholds. Recent data on self-reported PA in youth suggest that between 30% and 40% are sufficiently active. Prevalence values for sufficiently active youth measured by accelerometry range between 1% and 100%, depending on the intensity thresholds used. Sport participation is likely to contribute to higher levels of PA. The available evidence does not support the notion that PA levels and sport participation in youth have declined in recent decades.
The number of youth meeting current PA guidelines varies by assessment method and the intensity thresholds used when PA is measured by accelerometry. The available evidence does not firmly support the notion that PA in young people has declined during the last decades. It is unlikely that any self-report method is sufficiently accurate for examining cross-cultural differences and temporal trends in young people's PA and sport participation over time. Surveillance systems therefore need to strive for an international standardisation using objective measurements of PA to complement existing self-report instruments.
本综述旨在总结青少年（2-18 岁）通过自我报告和加速度计测量身体活动（PA）时存在的问题。将总结 PA 和运动参与的当前水平和时间趋势，以及评估方法对数据解释的影响。
从 MEDLINE 和个人数据库的计算机文献检索中提取相关论文。从最近发表的综述的参考文献中提取其他论文。
自我报告仪器的效标效度（与客观方法的直接比较）较低至中等，相关系数通常在 0.3 到 0.4 之间。自我报告仪器高估了 PA 和运动参与的强度和持续时间。加速度计测量的 PA 数据的解释是一个挑战，具体问题包括强度阈值的定义以及年龄对强度阈值的影响。最近关于青少年自我报告 PA 的数据表明，有 30%至 40%的青少年足够活跃。通过加速度计测量的足够活跃青少年的流行率值在 1%至 100%之间，具体取决于使用的强度阈值。运动参与可能会促进更高水平的 PA。现有证据并不支持青少年在过去几十年中 PA 水平和运动参与下降的观点。
符合当前 PA 指南的青少年人数因评估方法和用于测量 PA 的加速度计的强度阈值而异。现有证据并不能确凿地支持年轻人在过去几十年中 PA 下降的观点。任何自我报告方法都不太可能足够准确地检查年轻人的 PA 和运动参与随时间的跨文化差异和时间趋势。因此，监测系统需要努力使用 PA 的客观测量来实现国际标准化，以补充现有的自我报告仪器。
