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}
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 ( = 0.79) and GPAQ ( = 0.74), but only domain-level scores for the GPAQ ( = 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.
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.