Differences between objective and self-report measures of physical activity. What do they mean?
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Self-reported physical activity is widely used in clinical and research settings. Self-reports are subject to measurement error due to recall difficulty, different interpretations of terms like “moderate intensity”or “leisure time” and possible social desirability bias. Methods: Self-report and objectively measured physical activity data were compared in 3087 adult (ages 20 y or older) participants of the nationally representative US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004. Participants answered a physical activity questionnaire and wore an accelerometer for four to seven days. Questions addressed activity from transportation; household tasks; and recreational or leisure time exercise, sports, or physically active hobbies and were translated to minutes per day of moderate or greater intensity (mod-vig) activity. Accelerometer data were converted to minutes of mod-vig activity by summing minutes where the accelerometer count exceeded 2020 counts for “modified ten-minute bouts,” which allowed for interruptions of one or two minutes below threshold. Data were averaged over the available four to seven days. Results: Between 37.5% (men, 20-59 y) and 73.3% (women, 60＋y) of the population had no bouts of activity measured by accelerometer, but only 10.1% (men, 20-59 y) to 25.3% (women, 60＋y) reported zero minutes per day. Among the groups with zero accelerometer-measured activity bouts, the reported time in mod-vig activity ranged from 43.1 to 65.2 minutes per day. Cross categorization of accelerometer and self-report quantities found agreement for only 18.3% (men, 20-59 y) to 32.7% (women, 60＋y) of the population. Individuals with zero accelerometer-measured activity appeared in considerable numbers across all quantiles of self-reported activity, suggesting that misclassification could be severe. Conclusion: Self-reports provide poor estimates of absolute amounts of physical activity and may also lead to serious misclassification. Researchers and health professionals should be cautious when interpreting self-reported physical activity.
Abstract
Background: Self-reported physical activity is widely used in clinical and research settings. Self-reports are subject to measurement error due to recall difficulty, different interpretations of terms like “moderate intensity”or “leisure time” and possible social desirability bias. Methods: Self-report and objectively measured physical activity data were compared in 3087 adult (ages 20 y or older) participants of the nationally representative US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2004. Participants answered a physical activity questionnaire and wore an accelerometer for four to seven days. Questions addressed activity from transportation; household tasks; and recreational or leisure time exercise, sports, or physically active hobbies and were translated to minutes per day of moderate or greater intensity (mod-vig) activity. Accelerometer data were converted to minutes of mod-vig activity by summing minutes where the accelerometer count exceeded 2020 counts for “modified ten-minute bouts,” which allowed for interruptions of one or two minutes below threshold. Data were averaged over the available four to seven days. Results: Between 37.5% (men, 20-59 y) and 73.3% (women, 60＋y) of the population had no bouts of activity measured by accelerometer, but only 10.1% (men, 20-59 y) to 25.3% (women, 60＋y) reported zero minutes per day. Among the groups with zero accelerometer-measured activity bouts, the reported time in mod-vig activity ranged from 43.1 to 65.2 minutes per day. Cross categorization of accelerometer and self-report quantities found agreement for only 18.3% (men, 20-59 y) to 32.7% (women, 60＋y) of the population. Individuals with zero accelerometer-measured activity appeared in considerable numbers across all quantiles of self-reported activity, suggesting that misclassification could be severe. Conclusion: Self-reports provide poor estimates of absolute amounts of physical activity and may also lead to serious misclassification. Researchers and health professionals should be cautious when interpreting self-reported physical activity.
참고문헌 (19)
- Adams S.A, "The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity", American Journal of Epidemiology, 161(4), pp.389~98 (2005)
- Berrigan D, "Patterns of health behavior in U.S. adults", Preventive Medicine, 36(5), pp.615~23 (2003)
- Brage S, "Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 35, pp.1447~54 (2003)
- "National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, Laboratory Procedures Manual"[URL]
- Freedson P.S, "Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications", Inc. accelerometer. Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 30, pp.777~81 (1998)
- Hagströmer, M, "Physical activity and inactivity in an adult population assessed by accelerometry", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 39, pp.1502~8 (2007)
- Kipnis V, "Bias in dietary-report instruments and its implications for nutritional epidemiology", Public Health Nutrition, 5(6A), pp.915~23 (2002)
- Leenders N.Y, "Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, pp.1233~40 (2001)
- Matthews,C.E, "Calibration of accelerometer output for adults", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(11), pp.S512~22 (2002)
- Sallis, J.F, "Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions", Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 71, pp.1~14 (2000)
- Sapkota, S, "Adult participation in recommended levels of physical activity--United States, 2001 and 2003", MMWR Morbidity and Morality Weekly Report, 54, pp.1208~1212 (2005)
- STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, "SAS", pp.1999, SAS Institute, Inc
- Shah B.V, "SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 8.0. Research Triangle Park", NC: Research Triangle Institute
- Tremblay, M.S, "Canadian Health Measures Survey: background, rationale and overview", Health Reports, 18, pp.7~20 (2007)
- Troiano R.P, "Be physically active each day. How can we know?", Journal of Nutrition, 131, pp.451S~60S (2001)
- Troiano R.P, "Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 40, pp.181~8 (2008)
- Trost SG, "Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(11), pp.S531~43 (2005)
- Welk G.J, "Use of accelerometry-based activity monitors to assess physical activity, Physical activity assessments for health-related research" (2002), Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
- Yngve A, "Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output", Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise, 35, pp.320~6 (2003)