Tracking of Walking and Running for Exercise: Alignment Between Ecological Momentary Assessment and Accelerometer-Based Estimates

K. Strohacker, Lindsay P Toth, Lucas F. Sheridan, S. Crouter
{"title":"Tracking of Walking and Running for Exercise: Alignment Between Ecological Momentary Assessment and Accelerometer-Based Estimates","authors":"K. Strohacker, Lindsay P Toth, Lucas F. Sheridan, S. Crouter","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2022-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and accelerometer-based devices can be used concurrently to better understand dimensions of physical activity. This study presents procedures for analyzing data derived from both methods to examine exercise-related walking and running, as well as determine evidence for alignment between these methods. The participants (N = 29) wore an ActiGraph GT3X+ and completed four EMA surveys/day across 2 weeks to report exercise (mode and duration). GT3X+ counts per 10 s were processed using the Crouter two-regression model to identify periods of walking/running (coefficient of variation in activity counts ≤10% and >0%). Two reviewers visually inspected Crouter two-regression model data and recorded durations of walking/running in time blocks corresponding to EMA reports of exercise. The data were classified as “aligned” if the duration of walking/running between methods were within 20% of one another. Frequency analyses determined the proportion of aligned versus nonaligned exercise durations. Reviewer reliability was examined by calculating interobserver agreement (classification of aligned vs. nonaligned) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; duration based on coefficient of variation). Of the 139 self-reported bouts of walking and running exercise, 25% were classified as aligned with the Crouter two-regression model coefficient of variation. Initial interobserver agreement was 91, and ICCs across data classified as aligned (ICC = .992) and nonaligned (ICC = .960) were excellent. These novel procedures offer a means of isolating exercise-related physical activity for further analysis. Due to the inability to align evidence in most cases, we discuss key considerations for optimizing EMA survey questions, choice in accelerometer-based device, and future directions for visual analysis procedures.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2022-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and accelerometer-based devices can be used concurrently to better understand dimensions of physical activity. This study presents procedures for analyzing data derived from both methods to examine exercise-related walking and running, as well as determine evidence for alignment between these methods. The participants (N = 29) wore an ActiGraph GT3X+ and completed four EMA surveys/day across 2 weeks to report exercise (mode and duration). GT3X+ counts per 10 s were processed using the Crouter two-regression model to identify periods of walking/running (coefficient of variation in activity counts ≤10% and >0%). Two reviewers visually inspected Crouter two-regression model data and recorded durations of walking/running in time blocks corresponding to EMA reports of exercise. The data were classified as “aligned” if the duration of walking/running between methods were within 20% of one another. Frequency analyses determined the proportion of aligned versus nonaligned exercise durations. Reviewer reliability was examined by calculating interobserver agreement (classification of aligned vs. nonaligned) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; duration based on coefficient of variation). Of the 139 self-reported bouts of walking and running exercise, 25% were classified as aligned with the Crouter two-regression model coefficient of variation. Initial interobserver agreement was 91, and ICCs across data classified as aligned (ICC = .992) and nonaligned (ICC = .960) were excellent. These novel procedures offer a means of isolating exercise-related physical activity for further analysis. Due to the inability to align evidence in most cases, we discuss key considerations for optimizing EMA survey questions, choice in accelerometer-based device, and future directions for visual analysis procedures.
步行和跑步运动的跟踪:生态瞬时评估和基于加速度计的估计之间的一致性
生态瞬时评估(EMA)和基于加速度计的设备可以同时使用,以更好地了解身体活动的维度。本研究提出了分析两种方法得出的数据的程序,以检查与运动相关的步行和跑步,以及确定这些方法之间一致性的证据。参与者(N = 29)佩戴ActiGraph GT3X+,并在两周内每天完成四次EMA调查,以报告运动(模式和持续时间)。采用Crouter双回归模型对每10 s的GT3X+计数进行处理,以确定步行/跑步时间(活动计数变异系数≤10%和>0%)。两名审稿人目视检查Crouter双回归模型数据,并记录步行/跑步的持续时间与EMA报告的运动时间相对应。如果两种方法之间的步行/跑步时间相差在20%以内,则数据被归类为“一致”。频率分析确定了对齐与非对齐运动持续时间的比例。审稿人的信度通过计算观察者间的一致性(对齐与未对齐的分类)和类内相关系数(ICC;基于变异系数的持续时间)。在139次自我报告的步行和跑步锻炼中,25%被归类为符合cruouter双回归模型变异系数。初始观察者间一致性为91,分类为对齐(ICC = .992)和非对齐(ICC = .960)的数据间ICC非常好。这些新方法提供了一种隔离运动相关的身体活动的方法,以供进一步分析。由于在大多数情况下无法对齐证据,我们讨论了优化EMA调查问题的关键考虑因素,基于加速度计的设备的选择,以及视觉分析程序的未来方向。
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
CiteScore
2.90
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