Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Feb;50(2):266-276. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001428.
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: To assess the utility of measurement methods that may be more accurate and precise than traditional questionnaire-based estimates of habitual physical activity and sedentary behavior we compared the measurement properties of a past year questionnaire (AARP) and more comprehensive measures: an internet-based 24-h recall (ACT24), and a variety of estimates from an accelerometer (ActiGraph).
Participants were 932 adults (50-74 yr) in a 12-month study that included reference measures of energy expenditure from doubly labeled water (DLW) and active and sedentary time via activPAL.
Accuracy at the group level (mean differences) was generally better for both ACT24 and ActiGraph than the AARP questionnaire. The AARP accuracy for energy expenditure ranged from -4% to -13% lower than DLW, but its accuracy was poorer for physical activity duration (-48%) and sedentary time (-18%) versus activPAL. In contrast, ACT24 accuracy was within 3% to 10% of DLW expenditure measures and within 1% to 3% of active and sedentary time from activPAL. For ActiGraph, accuracy for energy expenditure was best for the Crouter 2-regression method (-2% to -7%), and for active and sedentary time the 100 counts per minute cutpoint was most accurate (-1% to 2%) at the group level. One administration of the AARP questionnaire was significantly correlated with long-term average from the reference measures (ρTX = 0.16-0.34) overall, but four ACT24 recalls had higher correlations (ρTX = 0.48-0.60), as did 4 d of ActiGraph assessment (ρTX = 0.54-0.87).
New exposure assessments suitable for use in large epidemiologic studies (ACT24, ActiGraph) were more accurate and had higher correlations than a traditional questionnaire. Use of better more comprehensive measures in future epidemiologic studies could yield new etiologic discoveries and possibly new opportunities for prevention.
简介/目的：为了评估可能比传统基于问卷的习惯性体力活动和久坐行为估计更准确和精确的测量方法的实用性，我们比较了过去一年问卷（AARP）和更全面的测量方法的测量特性：基于互联网的 24 小时回忆（ACT24），以及来自加速度计的各种估计（ActiGraph）。
参与者为参加为期 12 个月的研究的 932 名成年人（50-74 岁），该研究包括通过双标记水（DLW）和通过 activPAL 测量的能量消耗的参考测量值以及活跃和久坐时间。
在组水平上（平均差异），ACT24 和 ActiGraph 的准确性通常优于 AARP 问卷。AARP 对能量消耗的准确性比 DLW 低-4%至-13%，但与 activPAL 相比，其对体力活动持续时间（-48%）和久坐时间（-18%）的准确性较差。相比之下，ACT24 的准确性在 DLW 支出测量值的 3%到 10%之间，在与 activPAL 的活跃和久坐时间之间的 1%到 3%之间。对于 ActiGraph，Crouter 2-回归方法（-2%至-7%）的能量消耗准确性最佳，而每分钟 100 计数的切点在组水平上最准确（-1%至 2%）。AARP 问卷的一次管理与参考测量的长期平均值显著相关（ρTX = 0.16-0.34），但四次 ACT24 回忆的相关性更高（ρTX = 0.48-0.60），4 天的 ActiGraph 评估也更高（ρTX = 0.54-0.87）。
适合在大型流行病学研究中使用的新暴露评估（ACT24、ActiGraph）比传统问卷更准确，相关性更高。在未来的流行病学研究中使用更好、更全面的测量方法可能会带来新的病因发现，并可能为预防提供新的机会。
