Monnaatsie Malebogo, Mielke Gregore I, Biddle Stuart J H, Kolbe-Alexander Tracy L
School of Health and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Engineering and Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, Ipswich, Queensland, Australia.
Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Queensland, Australia.
J Sports Sci. 2024 Jun 20:1-10. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2024.2369443.
This study examined the criterion validity of an ecological momentary assessment (EMA)-reported physical activity and sedentary time compared with accelerometry in shift workers and non-shift workers. Australian workers ( = 102) received prompts through a mobile EMA app and wore the Actigraph accelerometer on the right hip for 7-10 days. Participants received five EMA prompts per day at 3-hour intervals on their mobile phones. EMA prompts sent to shift workers (SW-T) were tailored according to their work schedule. Non-shift workers (NSW-S) received prompts at standardised times. To assess criterion validity, the association of EMA-reported activities and the Actigraph accelerometer activity counts and number of steps were used. Participants were 36 ± 11 years and 58% were female. On occasions where participants reported physical activity, acceleration counts per minute (CPM) and steps were significantly higher (β = 1184 CPM, CI 95%: 1034, 1334; β = 20.9 steps, CI 95%: 18.2, 23.6) than each of the other EMA activities. Acceleration counts and steps were lower when sitting was reported than when no sitting was reported by EMA. Our study showed that EMA-reported physical activity and sedentary time was significantly associated with accelerometer-derived data. Therefore, EMA can be considered to assess shift workers' movement-related behaviours with accelerometers to provide rich contextual data.
本研究考察了生态瞬时评估(EMA)报告的体力活动和久坐时间与加速度计测量结果相比,在轮班工人和非轮班工人中的效标效度。102名澳大利亚工人通过移动EMA应用程序接收提示,并在右髋部佩戴Actigraph加速度计7至10天。参与者每天通过手机每隔3小时收到5次EMA提示。发送给轮班工人(SW-T)的EMA提示根据他们的工作时间表进行调整。非轮班工人(NSW-S)在标准化时间接收提示。为了评估效标效度,使用了EMA报告的活动与Actigraph加速度计活动计数和步数之间的关联。参与者年龄为36±11岁,58%为女性。在参与者报告进行体力活动的情况下,每分钟加速度计数(CPM)和步数显著高于其他EMA活动(β=1184 CPM,95%置信区间:1034,1334;β=20.9步,95%置信区间:18.2,23.6)。当EMA报告为坐着时,加速度计数和步数低于未报告坐着的情况。我们的研究表明,EMA报告的体力活动和久坐时间与加速度计得出的数据显著相关。因此,EMA可被视为与加速度计一起评估轮班工人与运动相关的行为,以提供丰富的情境数据。