Development of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire for the Elderly

Po-Wen Ku
{"title":"Development of the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire for the Elderly","authors":"Po-Wen Ku","doi":"10.5297/SER.1801.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to develop a reliable and valid questionnaire for measuring the time spent in different types of sedentary behaviors among elderly in their later life. Eighty community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or above were completed the questionnaire twice over a one-week period, and wore a tri-axial accelerometer during this period. The test-retest reliability over a one-week period was evaluated by paired-sample t-tests and Spearmen’s correlation. Concurrent validity was first examined using Spearman’s correlation by self-reported total sedentary time and accelerometer-assessed sedentary time. Then, the Bland-Altman Plot was utilized to compare the agreement between the self-reported measure and the objective measure. Based on nine types of sedentary behaviors, the mean self-reported total sedentary time was 7.29 ± 3.60 hours/day without napping time (0.64 hours/day). Regarding test-retest reliability, except reading, there were no significant differences in the self-reported total sedentary time and each type of sedentary time between pre- and post-test. Spearmen’s correlation analyses showed that test-retest reliability was satisfactory for taking a nap, computer/internet use, working or volunteering and reading; marginally acceptable for watching TV, eating and hobbies; and poor for chatting, driving/sitting in a car, and others. Total sedentary time (including napping time) on an average day (sum of ten activities) had adequate test-retest reliability. Self-reported total sedentary time was significantly correlated with accelerometer-derived sedentary time, revealing that the concurrent validity was adequate. The Bland-Altman Plot indicated self-reported total sedentary time on average underestimated accelerometer-derived sedentary time by -0.59 hours/day. However, the mean self-reported total sedentary time was not significantly different from mean objective sedentary time. Overall, this study demonstrated the preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of questionnaire for assessing the sedentary behaviors among Taiwanese older adults.","PeriodicalId":338279,"journal":{"name":"Sports & Exercise Research","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sports & Exercise Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5297/SER.1801.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a reliable and valid questionnaire for measuring the time spent in different types of sedentary behaviors among elderly in their later life. Eighty community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years or above were completed the questionnaire twice over a one-week period, and wore a tri-axial accelerometer during this period. The test-retest reliability over a one-week period was evaluated by paired-sample t-tests and Spearmen’s correlation. Concurrent validity was first examined using Spearman’s correlation by self-reported total sedentary time and accelerometer-assessed sedentary time. Then, the Bland-Altman Plot was utilized to compare the agreement between the self-reported measure and the objective measure. Based on nine types of sedentary behaviors, the mean self-reported total sedentary time was 7.29 ± 3.60 hours/day without napping time (0.64 hours/day). Regarding test-retest reliability, except reading, there were no significant differences in the self-reported total sedentary time and each type of sedentary time between pre- and post-test. Spearmen’s correlation analyses showed that test-retest reliability was satisfactory for taking a nap, computer/internet use, working or volunteering and reading; marginally acceptable for watching TV, eating and hobbies; and poor for chatting, driving/sitting in a car, and others. Total sedentary time (including napping time) on an average day (sum of ten activities) had adequate test-retest reliability. Self-reported total sedentary time was significantly correlated with accelerometer-derived sedentary time, revealing that the concurrent validity was adequate. The Bland-Altman Plot indicated self-reported total sedentary time on average underestimated accelerometer-derived sedentary time by -0.59 hours/day. However, the mean self-reported total sedentary time was not significantly different from mean objective sedentary time. Overall, this study demonstrated the preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of questionnaire for assessing the sedentary behaviors among Taiwanese older adults.
老年人久坐行为问卷的编制
本研究旨在编制一份可靠有效的问卷,用于测量老年人在晚年生活中不同类型的久坐行为所花费的时间。80名65岁或以上的社区老年人在一周内完成了两次问卷调查,并在此期间佩戴了三轴加速度计。采用配对样本t检验和Spearmen相关法评估一周内的重测信度。同时效度首先通过斯皮尔曼相关法通过自我报告的总久坐时间和加速度计评估的久坐时间来检验。然后,利用Bland-Altman图比较自我报告测量与客观测量之间的一致性。基于9种类型的久坐行为,平均自述的总久坐时间为7.29±3.60小时/天,不包括午睡时间(0.64小时/天)。在重测信度方面,除阅读外,自我报告的总久坐时间和各种类型的久坐时间在测试前和测试后没有显著差异。Spearmen的相关分析显示,小睡、电脑/互联网使用、工作或志愿服务和阅读的重测信度令人满意;在看电视、吃饭和爱好方面勉强可以接受;在聊天、开车/坐在车里等方面也很差。平均一天的总久坐时间(包括午睡时间)(十项活动的总和)具有足够的重测信度。自我报告的总久坐时间与加速度计计算的久坐时间显著相关,表明同时效度是足够的。Bland-Altman图显示,自我报告的总久坐时间平均低估了加速度计计算的久坐时间-0.59小时/天。然而,平均自我报告的总久坐时间与平均客观久坐时间没有显著差异。总体而言,本研究初步证明了问卷评估台湾老年人久坐行为的信度和效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信