Williams Ryan A, Dring Karah J, Morris John G, Sun Feng-Hua, Cooper Simon B
Exercise and Health Research Group; Sport, Health and Performance Enhancement (SHAPE) Research Centre; Department of Sport Science, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.
Department of Health and Physical Education, the Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
J Sports Sci. 2022 Nov;40(22):2499-2508. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2023.2167254. Epub 2023 Jan 13.
The present study examined the agreement and equivalence between two physical activity processing methods. Data were obtained from 161 Hong-Kong adolescents (74 girls, age: 12.6 ± 1.7y). Participants wore an Actigraph GT3XBT on their non-dominant wrist for 7d. Time spent sedentary, and in light-(LPA), moderate-(MPA), vigorous-(VPA), and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were calculated using different processing methods (proprietary counts and Euclidean Norm Minus One (ENMO)). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to examine absolute agreement (ICC2) and consistency (ICC3), and equivalence was assessed using pairwise equivalence tests. Using ENMO, sedentary time and VPA were higher, whereas all other behaviours were lower (compared to counts processing). Agreement ranged from poor (ICC2:0.42(Sedentary)) to moderate (ICC2:0.86(LPA)) and consistency ranged from moderate (ICC3:0.71(sedentary)) to good (ICC3:0.91(LPA)). Methods were not considered equivalent (all > 0.05). Due to differences in the wear-time validation of processing methods, a sensitivity analyses (sub-sample with the same valid wear time for both methods (n = 56)), resulted in minimal change. Lack of agreement and equivalence between ENMO and counts processing methods suggests that the processing method significantly affects youth physical activity estimates.
本研究考察了两种身体活动处理方法之间的一致性和等效性。数据来自161名香港青少年(74名女孩,年龄:12.6±1.7岁)。参与者在非优势手腕上佩戴Actigraph GT3XBT手环7天。使用不同的处理方法(专有计数法和欧几里得范数减一法(ENMO))计算久坐时间、轻度身体活动(LPA)、中度身体活动(MPA)、剧烈身体活动(VPA)以及中度至剧烈身体活动(MVPA)的时间。组内相关系数(ICC)用于检验绝对一致性(ICC2)和一致性(ICC3),并使用成对等效性检验评估等效性。使用ENMO法时,久坐时间和VPA时间较高,而所有其他行为的时间较低(与计数处理法相比)。一致性范围从较差(ICC2:0.42(久坐))到中等(ICC2:0.86(LPA)),一致性范围从中等(ICC3:0.71(久坐))到良好(ICC3:0.91(LPA))。两种方法不被认为是等效的(所有p>0.05)。由于处理方法在佩戴时间验证方面存在差异,进行了敏感性分析(两种方法具有相同有效佩戴时间的子样本(n = 56)),结果变化极小。ENMO法和计数处理法之间缺乏一致性和等效性表明,处理方法显著影响青少年身体活动的估计值。