Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-9704, USA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Aug;45(8):1629-38. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182897690.
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).
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.
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, β1 = 0.80-1.13) and active time (β1 = 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 (β1 = 0.63-0.73) and active time (β1 = 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).
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.
前日回忆(PDR)可能是一种比传统基于问卷的体力活动和久坐行为(例如,过去一年)估计方法错误率更低的替代方法,但该方法的有效性尚未确定。我们评估了一种由访谈者进行的 PDR 在青少年(12-17 岁)和成年人(18-71 岁)中的有效性。
在一项为期 7 天的研究中,参与者完成了三次 PDR,佩戴了两个活动监测器,并完成了社会期望和体重指数的测量。通过使用测量误差建模和传统验证方法,将 PDR 对活跃和久坐时间的测量与加速度计(ActiGraph)进行对比,同时与有效的参考测量(activPAL)进行对比。
年龄和性别特异性混合模型比较 PDR 与 activPAL 表明:1)在久坐(回归斜率,β1 = 0.80-1.13)和活跃时间(β1 = 0.64-1.09)之间存在很强的线性关系,2)个体特定的偏差低于随机误差,3)相关性很高(久坐:r = 0.60-0.81;活跃:r = 0.52-0.80)。报告误差与体重指数或社会期望无关。比较 ActiGraph 与 activPAL 的模型表明:1)在久坐(β1 = 0.63-0.73)和活跃时间(β1 = 0.61-0.72)之间存在较弱的线性关系,2)个体特定的偏差略大于随机误差,3)相关性很高(久坐:r = 0.68-0.77;活跃:r = 0.57-0.79)。
PDR 与 activPAL 之间的相关性很高,系统报告误差较低,并且 PDR 的有效性与 ActiGraph 相当。PDR 可能在体力活动和健康研究中具有价值,特别是那些对测量活动相关行为的具体类型、地点和目的感兴趣的研究。