Suppr超能文献

验证前一天回忆法测量活动和久坐行为的有效性。

Validation of a previous-day recall measure of active and sedentary behaviors.

机构信息

Nutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892-9704, USA.

出版信息

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Aug;45(8):1629-38. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182897690.

Abstract

PURPOSE

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).

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
County-level residential segregation and sedentary behavior in US adults.美国成年人县级居住隔离与久坐行为
J Act Sedentary Sleep Behav. 2025 Sep 2;4(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s44167-025-00084-w.
9
Sedentary Behavior in U.S. Adults: Fall 2019.美国成年人久坐行为:2019 年秋季。
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021 Dec 1;53(12):2512-2519. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002751.

本文引用的文献

4
Modeling errors in physical activity recall data.体力活动回忆数据中的建模误差。
J Phys Act Health. 2012 Jan;9 Suppl 1:S56-67. doi: 10.1123/jpah.9.s1.s56.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验