McMurray R G, Harrell J S, Bradley C B, Webb J P, Goodman E M
Department of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Science and School of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-8700, USA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998 Aug;30(8):1238-45. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199808000-00009.
To develop and test a computerized activity recall (CAR) for capturing activity and energy expenditure (EE) in youth and to further our understanding of the use of the three-dimensional accelerometer (Tritrac) for studying activity and EE.
Forty-five students (25 girls and 20 boys) in grade 6-8, completed 5 consecutive days of the CAR and were randomly assigned to wear the Tritrac during 1 day in which they also completed the CAR. Twenty-two subjects also repeated 5 d of the CAR and 1 d of Tritrac monitoring 1-2 wk later.
The correlation between CAR and Tritrac for total EE was significant (r = 0.510, P = 0.0003). However, the total EE computed from the Tritrac was significantly greater than the CAR (1941 +/- 273 kcal vs 1576 +/- 343 kcal (8.14 +/- 1.14 vs 6.60 +/- 1.44 MJ); P < 0.001). The EE of activities was similar for the Tritrac and CAR, approximately 670 kcal (2.80 MJ), suggesting that the difference between the two methods was their estimates of resting EE. Comparison of the CAR and Tritrac for classifying active and inactive subjects indicated that both methods similarly classified 35 of the 45 subjects or 78% (P = 0.0038). Although significant, the Kappa statistic (kappa = 0.398) indicated a low-level of agreement between methods. The Tritrac indicated 50.4 +/- 29.2 min.d-1 of activities of > or = 3 METs, whereas the CAR indicated 76.7 +/- 71.9 min.d-1 (P = 0.02). The week 1 vs 2 test-retest correlation was 0.0485 (P = 0.022) for the Tritrac and 0.820 (P = 0.0001) for the CAR.
It appears that both methods have acceptable reliability. However, the validity of each method to measure total and activity EE remains unclear, as the Tritrac appears to overestimate resting energy expenditure, whereas the CAR overestimates total minutes of activity.
开发并测试一种用于记录青少年活动和能量消耗（EE）的计算机化活动回忆法（CAR），并进一步加深我们对使用三维加速度计（Tritrac）研究活动和EE的理解。
45名6 - 8年级的学生（25名女生和20名男生）连续5天完成CAR，并被随机分配在一天内佩戴Tritrac，这一天他们同时也完成CAR。22名受试者在1 - 2周后重复5天的CAR和1天的Tritrac监测。
CAR与Tritrac在总EE方面的相关性显著（r = 0.510，P = 0.0003）。然而，由Tritrac计算出的总EE显著高于CAR（1941±273千卡对1576±343千卡（8.14±1.14对6.60±1.44兆焦）；P < 0.001）。Tritrac和CAR的活动EE相似，约为670千卡（2.80兆焦），这表明两种方法的差异在于它们对静息EE的估计。CAR与Tritrac在区分活跃和不活跃受试者方面的比较表明，两种方法对45名受试者中的35名（即78%）的分类相似（P = 0.0038）。尽管具有显著性，但卡帕统计量（kappa = 0.398）表明两种方法之间的一致性水平较低。Tritrac显示≥3代谢当量（METs）的活动为50.4±29.2分钟·天-1，而CAR显示为76.7±71.9分钟·天-1（P = 0.02）。Tritrac第1周与第2周的重测相关性为0.0485（P = 0.022），CAR为0.820（P = 0.0001）。
似乎两种方法都具有可接受的可靠性。然而，每种方法测量总EE和活动EE的有效性仍不明确，因为Tritrac似乎高估了静息能量消耗，而CAR高估了活动的总分钟数。
