Iversen Maura D, von Heideken Johan, Farmer Elisabeth, Rihm Jessica, Heyworth Benton E, Kocher Mininder S
*Department of Physical Therapy, Movement and Rehabilitation Sciences, Northeastern University Departments of ‡Medicine ¶Orthopedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School ∥Department of Orthopaedic Surgery/Division of Sports Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital †Section of Clinical Sciences, Division of Rheumatology, Immunology & Allergy, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, MA §Department of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
J Pediatr Orthop. 2016 Apr-May;36(3):278-83. doi: 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000448.
Adult physical activity scales are used with children but may not be valid in this population. This study assesses the appropriateness and comprehensibility of currently used physical activity scales in children, identifies sources of response errors, and suggests scale modifications.
Cognitive interviews were conducted with 30 children who had a lower extremity injury, purposefully sampled based on age and sex. Interviews were conducted to identify children's comprehension of 6 physical activity questionnaires: Tegner activity scale, Cincinnati Knee Rating System, KOOS-Child, Marx activity scale, HSS Pedi-FABS, and KOS sports activity scale.
The Tegner scale uses complex activity level descriptions (eg, competitive vs. recreational sports, types of sports and inclusion of work-related physical activity). Activity frequency, description of movement, and sport type in the Cincinnati Knee Rating System led to response mapping issues in many children. Most children felt the KOOS-Child pictures depicting activities were helpful, but not all found the 7-day timeframe relevant. Whereas, most children found the Marx scale and HSS Pedi-FABS items clear, concise, and easy to answer. Children reported difficulties differentiating between endurance and duration items used in the HSS Pedi-FABS. The consistent response format of the KOS sports activity scale was considered a positive attribute although children had trouble comprehending terms such as grating and grinding.
Children found some scales too difficult to answer, whereas others required modifications, particularly in general instruction, language, question format, and mapping (matching an answer to potential options) to adapt to the specific needs of children.
Level II.
成人身体活动量表用于儿童,但在该人群中可能无效。本研究评估了当前使用的儿童身体活动量表的适用性和可理解性,确定了回答错误的来源,并提出了量表修改建议。
对30名下肢受伤的儿童进行了认知访谈,根据年龄和性别进行了有目的的抽样。进行访谈以确定儿童对6种身体活动问卷的理解:特格纳活动量表、辛辛那提膝关节评分系统、儿童膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS-Child)、马克思活动量表、特种外科医院儿童功能活动量表(HSS Pedi-FABS)和膝关节运动活动量表(KOS)。
特格纳量表使用复杂的活动水平描述(例如,竞技运动与休闲运动、运动类型以及与工作相关的身体活动的纳入情况)。辛辛那提膝关节评分系统中的活动频率、运动描述和运动类型导致许多儿童出现回答映射问题。大多数儿童认为KOOS-Child中描绘活动的图片很有帮助,但并非所有人都认为7天的时间范围相关。而大多数儿童认为马克思量表和HSS Pedi-FABS的项目清晰、简洁且易于回答。儿童报告在区分HSS Pedi-FABS中使用的耐力和持续时间项目时存在困难。KOS运动活动量表一致的回答格式被认为是一个积极的属性,尽管儿童在理解诸如摩擦和研磨等术语时存在困难。
儿童发现一些量表太难回答,而其他量表则需要修改,特别是在一般指导、语言、问题格式和映射(将答案与潜在选项匹配)方面,以适应儿童的特定需求。
二级。