Department of Rehabilitation and Movement Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT,USA.
Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA,USA.
J Phys Act Health. 2022 Jul 7;19(8):540-547. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2021-0821. Print 2022 Aug 1.
The Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers (IPAB) assesses physical activity participation barriers. Development, refinement, and psychometric evaluation of the IPAB occurred via an electronic format. However, various circumstances may require using a pen-and-paper format. As instrument formats are not always interchangeable, the authors aimed to establish whether 2 different formats (electronic and pen and paper) can be used interchangeably for the IPAB.
This randomized crossover study included 66 community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older (mean age = 73 [SD = 7.6]). Half the sample completed the electronic format of the IPAB first and the pen-and-paper format second, and the other half completed them in reverse order. Tests of equivalence and a Bland-Altman plot were performed.
The intraclass correlation coefficient between formats was .94, and kappa was .68. The mean difference between the 2 administration forms of the IPAB was 0.002 (P = .96). Both administration formats had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .92 and .93) and illustrated construct validity (P ≤ .001 for both administration formats).
Pen-and-paper and electronic formats of the IPAB are equivalent and, thus, can be used interchangeably among non-Hispanic whites who are highly educated. The format should be used consistently if completing preintervention and postintervention evaluations or comparing scores.
体力活动障碍量表(Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers,IPAB)评估体力活动参与障碍。该量表的开发、完善和心理测量评估是通过电子格式进行的。然而,由于各种情况可能需要使用纸笔格式,因此不同的格式可能无法相互替换。作者旨在确定 IPAB 的两种不同格式(电子格式和纸笔格式)是否可以在某些情况下相互替换使用。
这是一项随机交叉研究,共纳入 66 名年龄在 50 岁及以上的社区居民(平均年龄=73[SD=7.6]岁)。一半的参与者先完成 IPAB 的电子格式,然后完成纸笔格式;另一半则按照相反的顺序完成。作者进行了等效性检验和 Bland-Altman 图分析。
两种格式之间的组内相关系数为.94,kappa 值为.68。IPAB 的两种测试形式之间的平均差异为 0.002(P=.96)。两种测试形式均具有较高的内部一致性(Cronbach α值分别为.92 和.93),并显示出良好的结构效度(两种测试形式的 P 值均≤.001)。
在受教育程度较高的非西班牙裔白人中,IPAB 的纸笔格式和电子格式是等效的,可以相互替换使用。如果要进行干预前后的评估或比较分数,则应使用相同的格式。