4.6 Article

Advances in Population Surveillance for Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior: Reliability and Validity of Time Use Surveys

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 172, 期 10, 页码 1199-1206

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwq265

关键词

epidemiologic measurements; exercise; population surveillance; public health; sedentary lifestyle

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [301200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many countries conduct regular national time use surveys, some of which date back as far as the 1960s. Time use surveys potentially provide more detailed and accurate national estimates of the prevalence of sedentary and physical activity behavior than more traditional self-report surveillance systems. In this study, the authors determined the reliability and validity of time use surveys for assessing sedentary and physical activity behavior. In 2006 and 2007, participants (n - 134) were recruited from work sites in the Australian state of New South Wales. Participants completed a 2-day time use diary twice, 7 days apart, and wore an accelerometer. The 2 diaries were compared for test-retest reliability, and comparison with the accelerometer determined concurrent validity. Participants with similar activity patterns during the 2 diary periods showed reliability intraclass correlations of 0.74 and 0.73 for nonoccupational sedentary behavior and moderate/vigorous physical activity, respectively. Comparison of the diary with the accelerometer showed Spearman correlations of 0.57-0.59 and 0.45-0.69 for nonoccupational sedentary behavior and moderate/vigorous physical activity, respectively. Time use surveys appear to be more valid for population surveillance of nonoccupational sedentary behavior and health-enhancing physical activity than more traditional surveillance systems. National time use surveys could be used to retrospectively study nonoccupational sedentary and physical activity behavior over the past 5 decades.

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

4.6
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