Smith R D, McHugh G A, Quicke J G, Dziedzic K S, Healey E L
School of Nursing, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Musculoskeletal Care. 2021 Dec;19(4):473-483. doi: 10.1002/msc.1540. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
This study assessed the measurement properties of two commonly used self-report physical activity (PA) measures: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Physical Activity Scale for the elderly (PASE) in adults with osteoarthritis.
Secondary analysis of the MOSAICS cluster randomised controlled trial baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, total scores and subdomains of the IPAQ-SF and PASE were compared. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were used to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standard responsive measurement (SRM) and response ratio (RR).
There was moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the total IPAQ-SF scores (score ranges 0-16,398) and the total PASE scores (score ranges 0-400). Subdomain correlations were also moderate (ranges 0.39-0.57). The PASE showed greater reliability compared to the IPAQ-SF (ICC = 0.68; 0.61-0.74 95% CI and ICC = 0.64; 0.55-0.72, respectively). Measurement errors in both measures were large: PASE SEM = 46.7, SDC = 129.6 and 95% LoA ranges = -117 to 136, the IPAQ-SF SEM = 3532.2 METS , SDC = 9790.8 and 95% LoA ranges = -5222 to 5597. Responsiveness was poor: ES -0.14 and -0.16, SRM -0.21 and -0.21, and RR 0.12 and 0.09 for the IPAQ-SF and PASE, respectively.
The IPAQ-SF and PASE appear limited in reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these limitations, particularly when comparing different levels of PA and monitoring PA levels changes over time in those with osteoarthritis.
本研究评估了两种常用的自我报告身体活动（PA）测量方法的测量属性：国际身体活动问卷简表（IPAQ-SF）和老年人身体活动量表（PASE）在骨关节炎成年人中的应用。
对MOSAICS整群随机对照试验的基线和3个月随访问卷进行二次分析，比较IPAQ-SF和PASE的总分及子领域得分。使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估重测信度，使用测量标准误（SEM）、最小可检测变化（SDC）和95%一致性界限（LoA）评估测量误差。使用效应大小（ES）、标准反应性测量（SRM）和反应比（RR）评估反应性。
IPAQ-SF总分（得分范围0 - 16398）与PASE总分（得分范围0 - 400）之间存在中度相关性（r = 0.56）。子领域相关性也为中度（范围0.39 - 0.57）。与IPAQ-SF相比，PASE显示出更高的信度（ICC分别为0.68；95%CI为0.61 - 0.74和ICC为0.64；0.55 - 0.72）。两种测量方法的测量误差都很大：PASE的SEM = 46.7，SDC = 129.6，95%LoA范围 = -117至136；IPAQ-SF的SEM = 3532.2代谢当量，SDC = 9790.8，95%LoA范围 = -5222至5597。反应性较差：IPAQ-SF和PASE的ES分别为 -0.14和 -0.16，SRM分别为 -0.21和 -0.21，RR分别为0.12和0.09。
IPAQ-SF和PASE在信度、测量误差和反应性方面似乎存在局限性。研究人员和临床医生应意识到这些局限性，特别是在比较不同水平的身体活动以及监测骨关节炎患者身体活动水平随时间的变化时。
