4.5 Article

Number of accelerometer monitoring days needed for stable group-level estimates of activity

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
卷 37, 期 9, 页码 1447-1455

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/37/9/1447

关键词

physical activity assessment; accelerometer; measurement; bias

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To determine the number and distribution of days required to produce stable group-level estimates of a 7 d mean for common accelerometer-derived activity measures. Data from the 2003-2006 NHANES were used in this analysis. The sample included 986 youth (6-19 year) and 2532 adults (>= 20 year) with 7 d of >= 10 h of wear. Accelerometer measures included minutes of inactive, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA); and total activity counts/d. Twenty-five alternative protocols were bootstrapped with 50 000 samples drawn for each protocol. Alternative protocols included: 1-6 random days, Saturday plus 1-5 random weekdays (WD), Sunday plus 1-5 random WD, 1 random weekend day (WE) plus 1-5 WD, and both WE plus 1-4 random WD. Relative difference was calculated between the 7 d mean and alternative protocol mean (((alternative protocol mean - 7 d mean)/7 d mean) * 100). Adult MVPA is used as an example; however, similar trends were observed across age groups and variables except adult inactive time, which was stable across protocols. The 7 d mean for adult MVPA was 44.1(0.9) min d(-1). The mean bias for any 1-6 random days ranged from -0.0(0.3) to 0.0(0.2) min d-1 with a relative difference of -0.1 to 0.0%. For protocols with non-random components, bias ranged from -1.4(0.2) to 0.6(0.1) min d(-1) with relative difference ranging from -7.2 to 3.1%. Simulation data suggest that stable estimates of group-level means can be obtained from as few as one randomly selected monitoring day from a sampled week. On the other hand, estimates using non-random selection of weekend days may be significantly biased. Purposeful sampling that disproportionally forces inclusion of weekend data in analyses should be discouraged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据