比较在社区居住的中风成人体育活动问卷的可靠性。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Kenneth S Noguchi, Sohnia Sansanwal, Ava Mehdipour, Ada Tang
{"title":"比较在社区居住的中风成人体育活动问卷的可靠性。","authors":"Kenneth S Noguchi, Sohnia Sansanwal, Ava Mehdipour, Ada Tang","doi":"10.1080/10749357.2024.2376431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physical activity (PA) is important for people with stroke, but the reliability of PA questionnaires used in this population has been relatively unexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the internal consistency, test-retest, and absolute reliability of 3 commonly used PA questionnaires in adults with stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants reported their PA levels twice, 2-3 days apart, using the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>) were calculated for test-retest reliability, Cronbach's alpha (α) for internal consistency, and standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>95</sub>) for absolute reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight people (64.4 years, 50% female, 5.2 years post-stroke) participated. Internal consistency was acceptable for total scores on the IPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.79) and GPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.74), but only domain-level scores for the GPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.71-0.88). In the full sample, test-retest reliability was good for the PASIPD (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 0.83) but poor for the IPAQ and GPAQ (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> <0.50). After excluding participants self-reporting true changes in PA, all questionnaires had good test-retest reliability (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 0.77-0.88). SEM and MDC<sub>95</sub> were lowest for the PASIPD (188.8 and 523.3 MET-minutes/week, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adults with stroke, the IPAQ and GPAQ had adequate total-questionnaire internal consistency, and the GPAQ had acceptable domain-level internal consistency. When true change in PA did not occur, test-retest reliability was good for all questionnaires. We suggest clinicians and rehabilitation scientists can use any of the three questionnaires, but may consider the GPAQ due to acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability.</p>","PeriodicalId":23164,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the reliability of physical activity questionnaires in community-dwelling adults with stroke.\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth S Noguchi, Sohnia Sansanwal, Ava Mehdipour, Ada Tang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10749357.2024.2376431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Physical activity (PA) is important for people with stroke, but the reliability of PA questionnaires used in this population has been relatively unexplored.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the internal consistency, test-retest, and absolute reliability of 3 commonly used PA questionnaires in adults with stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants reported their PA levels twice, 2-3 days apart, using the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>) were calculated for test-retest reliability, Cronbach's alpha (α) for internal consistency, and standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>95</sub>) for absolute reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight people (64.4 years, 50% female, 5.2 years post-stroke) participated. Internal consistency was acceptable for total scores on the IPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.79) and GPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.74), but only domain-level scores for the GPAQ (<math><mi>α</mi></math> = 0.71-0.88). In the full sample, test-retest reliability was good for the PASIPD (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 0.83) but poor for the IPAQ and GPAQ (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> <0.50). After excluding participants self-reporting true changes in PA, all questionnaires had good test-retest reliability (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> = 0.77-0.88). SEM and MDC<sub>95</sub> were lowest for the PASIPD (188.8 and 523.3 MET-minutes/week, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In adults with stroke, the IPAQ and GPAQ had adequate total-questionnaire internal consistency, and the GPAQ had acceptable domain-level internal consistency. When true change in PA did not occur, test-retest reliability was good for all questionnaires. We suggest clinicians and rehabilitation scientists can use any of the three questionnaires, but may consider the GPAQ due to acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2024.2376431\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2024.2376431","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:体力活动(PA)对脑卒中患者非常重要,但在这一人群中使用的 PA 问卷的可靠性相对较低:体力活动(PA)对脑卒中患者很重要,但在这一人群中使用的 PA 问卷的可靠性相对较低:目的:比较 3 种常用脑卒中成人 PA 问卷的内部一致性、重测和绝对可靠性:方法:受试者使用肢体残疾者体力活动量表(PASIPD)、国际体力活动问卷(IPAQ)和全球体力活动问卷(GPAQ)报告其两次体力活动水平,每次间隔 2-3 天。计算的类内相关系数(ICC2,1)表示测试-再测可靠性,克朗巴赫α(α)表示内部一致性,测量标准误差(SEM)和最小可检测变化(MDC95)表示绝对可靠性:共有 28 人(64.4 岁,50% 为女性,卒中后 5.2 年)参加了调查。IPAQ总分(α = 0.79)和GPAQ(α = 0.74)的内部一致性是可以接受的,但GPAQ只有领域水平得分(α = 0.71-0.88)的内部一致性是可以接受的。在全样本中,PASIPD 的测试重复可靠性较好(ICC2,1 = 0.83),但 IPAQ 和 GPAQ 的测试重复可靠性较差(ICC2,1 2,1 = 0.77-0.88)。PASIPD的SEM和MDC95最低(分别为188.8和523.3 MET分钟/周):结论:在中风成人患者中,IPAQ 和 GPAQ 具有充分的总问卷内部一致性,GPAQ 具有可接受的领域水平内部一致性。当 PA 没有发生真正变化时,所有问卷的测试-再测可靠性都很好。我们建议临床医生和康复科学家可以使用这三种问卷中的任何一种,但由于 GPAQ 具有可接受的内部一致性和重测可靠性,因此可以考虑使用 GPAQ。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing the reliability of physical activity questionnaires in community-dwelling adults with stroke.

Background: Physical activity (PA) is important for people with stroke, but the reliability of PA questionnaires used in this population has been relatively unexplored.

Objective: To compare the internal consistency, test-retest, and absolute reliability of 3 commonly used PA questionnaires in adults with stroke.

Methods: Participants reported their PA levels twice, 2-3 days apart, using the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities (PASIPD), International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC2,1) were calculated for test-retest reliability, Cronbach's alpha (α) for internal consistency, and standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC95) for absolute reliability.

Results: Twenty-eight people (64.4 years, 50% female, 5.2 years post-stroke) participated. Internal consistency was acceptable for total scores on the IPAQ (α = 0.79) and GPAQ (α = 0.74), but only domain-level scores for the GPAQ (α = 0.71-0.88). In the full sample, test-retest reliability was good for the PASIPD (ICC2,1 = 0.83) but poor for the IPAQ and GPAQ (ICC2,1 <0.50). After excluding participants self-reporting true changes in PA, all questionnaires had good test-retest reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.77-0.88). SEM and MDC95 were lowest for the PASIPD (188.8 and 523.3 MET-minutes/week, respectively).

Conclusions: In adults with stroke, the IPAQ and GPAQ had adequate total-questionnaire internal consistency, and the GPAQ had acceptable domain-level internal consistency. When true change in PA did not occur, test-retest reliability was good for all questionnaires. We suggest clinicians and rehabilitation scientists can use any of the three questionnaires, but may consider the GPAQ due to acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.50%
发文量
57
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation is the leading journal devoted to the study and dissemination of interdisciplinary, evidence-based, clinical information related to stroke rehabilitation. The journal’s scope covers physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurology, neurorehabilitation, neural engineering and therapeutics, neuropsychology and cognition, optimization of the rehabilitation system, robotics and biomechanics, pain management, nursing, physical therapy, cardiopulmonary fitness, mobility, occupational therapy, speech pathology and communication. There is a particular focus on stroke recovery, improving rehabilitation outcomes, quality of life, activities of daily living, motor control, family and care givers, and community issues. The journal reviews and reports clinical practices, clinical trials, state-of-the-art concepts, and new developments in stroke research and patient care. Both primary research papers, reviews of existing literature, and invited editorials, are included. Sharply-focused, single-issue topics, and the latest in clinical research, provide in-depth knowledge.
×
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