Literature DB >> 15673036

Comparison of the computerized ACTIVITYGRAM instrument and the previous day physical activity recall for assessing physical activity in children.

Gregory J Welk1, David A Dzewaltowski, Jennie L Hill.   

Abstract

This study compared the validity of children's physical activity recall through a computerized assessment (ACTIVITYGRAM) and through a popular paper and pencil assessment (Previous Day Physical Activity Recall; PDPAR). A total of 147 sixth-grade children from two schools completed the two recall instruments. Data from both self-report instruments were obtained over the same 3 days, and these data were matched by time with data from a subsample of children who wore an accelerometry-based activity monitor (n = 28). To confirm previous validity research with the PDPAR, a larger sample (n = 128) with matched data on the PDPAR and the accelerometer were also used. Activity levels recorded from all three instruments were computed for three periods (afternoon: 3-6 pm, evening: 6-11 p.m. and afternoon/evening: 3-11 p.m.). Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted across days and for the separate time periods to evaluate the two self-report instruments. There were no differences in mean activity bouts reported on the ACTIVITYGRAM and the PDPAR (p > .05). Correlations with the activity monitor were above .50 for both the PDPAR and the ACTIVITYGRAM, and the relationships were consistent across days and periods for both measures. The magnitude of the correlations varied widely in the two schools for the ACTIVITYGRAM comparisons (r = .80 vs. r = .20) but not for the PDPAR, suggesting differential administration or understanding of the ACTIVITYGRAM instrument. Direct correlations between the ACTIVITYGRAM and the PDPAR measures were high (r = .72), and classification agreement exceeded 80% for the school that provided adequate assistance and training on the ACTIVITYGRAM. Results were weaker in the school with less staff support. This study provides convergent and criterion evidence to support the validity of the computerized ACTIVITYGRAM assessment and suggests similar information as the paper and pencil PDPAR assessment in young children. The study also revealed no differences in PDPAR values or associations, when a simpler scoring procedure was used instead of the traditional more complex metabolic equivalent-based approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15673036     DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2004.10609170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Q Exerc Sport        ISSN: 0270-1367            Impact factor:   2.500


  8 in total

1.  Healthy youth places: a randomized controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of facilitating adult and youth leaders to promote physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption in middle schools.

Authors:  David A Dzewaltowski; Paul A Estabrooks; Greg Welk; Jennie Hill; George Milliken; Kostas Karteroliotis; Judy A Johnston
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2008-05-10

Review 2.  Practical physical activity measurement in youth: a review of contemporary approaches.

Authors:  Jerome N Rachele; Steven M McPhail; Tracy L Washington; Thomas F Cuddihy
Journal:  World J Pediatr       Date:  2012-08-12       Impact factor: 2.764

3.  Teaching Physicians Motivational Interviewing for Discussing Weight With Overweight Adolescents.

Authors:  Kathryn I Pollak; Cynthia J Coffman; James A Tulsky; Stewart C Alexander; Truls Østbye; David Farrell; Pauline Lyna; Rowena J Dolor; Alicia Bilheimer; Pao-Hwa Lin; Michael E Bodner; Terrill D Bravender
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2016-05-05       Impact factor: 5.012

4.  Behavioral weight control treatment with supervised exercise or peer-enhanced adventure for overweight adolescents.

Authors:  Elissa Jelalian; Elizabeth E Lloyd-Richardson; Robyn S Mehlenbeck; Chantelle N Hart; Katherine Flynn-O'Brien; Jamie Kaplan; Meghan Neill; Rena R Wing
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 4.406

5.  Assessment of diet and physical activity of brazilian schoolchildren: usability testing of a web-based questionnaire.

Authors:  Filipe Ferreira da Costa; Camilie Pacheco Schmoelz; Vanessa Fernandes Davies; Patrícia Faria Di Pietro; Emil Kupek; Maria Alice Altenburg de Assis
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2013-08-19

6.  The Multimedia Activity Recall for Children and Adolescents (MARCA): development and evaluation.

Authors:  Kate Ridley; Tim S Olds; Alison Hill
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2006-05-26       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  A bidirectional relationship between physical activity and executive function in older adults.

Authors:  Michael Daly; David McMinn; Julia L Allan
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  An Updated Systematic Review of Childhood Physical Activity Questionnaires.

Authors:  Lisan M Hidding; Mai J M Chinapaw; Mireille N M van Poppel; Lidwine B Mokkink; Teatske M Altenburg
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 11.136

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.