Department of Kinesiology, KU Leuven, Tervuursevest 101, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Jun 12;9:71. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-71.
Although differences between paper-and-pencil questionnaires and accelerometers have been reported for overall physical activity and time spent in moderate and vigorous activity, few studies have looked at domain-specific behavior. This study compared estimates of domain-specific physical (in)activity obtained with the Flemish physical activity computerized questionnaire (FPACQ) with those obtained from a combination of the SenseWear Armband and an electronic diary. Furthermore, it was investigated whether the correspondence between the two methods varied with gender and age.
Data were obtained from 442 Flemish adults (41.4 ± 9.8 years). Physical activity was questioned with the FPACQ and measured for seven consecutive days using the SenseWear Armband together with an electronic activity diary (SWD). Analogous variables were calculated from the FPACQ and SWD. Mean differences and associations between FPACQ and SWD outcomes were examined with paired t-tests and Pearson correlations. The Bland-Altman method was used to assess the level of agreement between the two methods. Main effects and interaction of gender and age groups (20-34; 35-49; 50-64 years) on differences between FPACQ and SWD outcomes were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs.
All parameters of the FPACQ were significantly correlated with SWD assessments (r = 0.21 to 0.65). Reported activity was significantly different from SWD-obtained values for all parameters, except screen time. Physical activity level, total energy expenditure and time spent in vigorous activities were significantly higher (+0.14 MET, +25.09 METhours·week(-1) and +1.66 hours·week(-1), respectively), and moderate activities and sedentary behavior significantly lower (-5.20 and -25.01 hours·week(-1), respectively) with the FPACQ compared to SWD. Time and energy expenditure of job activities and active transport were significantly higher, while household chores, motorized transport, eating and sleeping were significantly lower with the FPACQ. Time spent in sports was lower (-0.54 hours·week(-1)), but energy expenditure higher (+4.18 METhours·week(-1)) with the FPACQ. The correspondence between methods varied with gender and age, but results differed according to the intensity and domain of activity.
Despite the moderate correlations, significant differences between the two methods were found. In general, physical activity was higher and sedentary behavior lower as calculated from the FPACQ compared to SWD.
尽管已有研究报告指出，在总体身体活动和中高强度活动时间方面，纸笔问卷和加速度计之间存在差异，但很少有研究关注特定领域的行为。本研究比较了使用佛兰芒体力活动计算机化问卷（FPACQ）获得的特定领域体力（活动）的估计值与使用 SenseWear 臂带和电子日记相结合获得的估计值。此外，还研究了这两种方法之间的一致性是否因性别和年龄而异。
数据来自 442 名佛兰芒成年人（41.4 ± 9.8 岁）。使用 FPACQ 询问体力活动情况，并使用 SenseWear 臂带和电子活动日记（SWD）连续测量七天。从 FPACQ 和 SWD 中计算出类似的变量。使用配对 t 检验和 Pearson 相关系数检查 FPACQ 和 SWD 结果之间的平均差异和相关性。使用 Bland-Altman 方法评估两种方法之间的一致性水平。使用双向方差分析分析性别和年龄组（20-34 岁；35-49 岁；50-64 岁）对 FPACQ 和 SWD 结果之间差异的主要影响和交互作用。
FPACQ 的所有参数均与 SWD 评估显著相关（r = 0.21 至 0.65）。除屏幕时间外，报告的活动与所有参数的 SWD 获得值均有显著差异。与 SWD 相比，FPACQ 中的体力活动水平、总能量消耗和剧烈活动时间分别显著更高（+0.14 MET、+25.09 METhours·week-1 和+1.66 hours·week-1），中度活动和久坐行为显著更低（-5.20 和-25.01 hours·week-1）。与 SWD 相比，FPACQ 中的工作活动和主动交通的时间和能量消耗明显更高，而家务、机动交通、饮食和睡眠明显更低。运动时间（-0.54 hours·week-1）较低，但能量消耗（+4.18 METhours·week-1）较高。方法之间的一致性因性别和年龄而异，但结果因活动的强度和领域而异而有所不同。
尽管相关性适中，但两种方法之间存在显著差异。一般来说，与 SWD 相比，FPACQ 计算出的体力活动更高，久坐行为更低。
