View in EDS

Youth recall and TriTrac accelerometer estimates of physical activity levels.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Youth recall and TriTrac accelerometer estimates of physical activity levels.
Authors:	Cradock AL (AUTHOR), Wiecha JL (AUTHOR), Peterson KE (AUTHOR), Sobol AM (AUTHOR), Colditz GA (AUTHOR), Gortmaker SL (AUTHOR)
Source:	Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Mar2004, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p525-532. 8p.
Abstract:	PURPOSE: To examine significance of missing data and describe physical activity patterns using recall and accelerometer measures among youth in a nonlaboratory setting. METHODS: Fifty-four middle-school students wore TriTrac-R3D monitors (TTM) and completed an interviewer-prompted 24-h recall during two, 5-d monitoring sessions. We coded 2860 30-min recall intervals to a standard MET compendium. Complete TTM data were gathered for 43 students. Ordinal multinomial models tested for bias in TTM estimates of activity levels due to: 1) exclusion of subjects with incomplete TTM data, and 2) exclusion of intervals within days due to missing TTM data. RESULTS: Students with complete monitor data had an average 12.5 +/- 0.9 monitored hours per day over 5.5 +/- 2.1 d. Compared with students with incomplete monitoring data, they reported similar proportions of recall 30-min intervals at sedentary (68% vs 69%), light (14% vs 15%), moderate (11% vs 10%), and vigorous (7% vs 6%) intensity levels (P = 0.63). The proportion of recall intervals (within days) with and without simultaneous monitoring data did not differ by activity intensity (P = 0.64) across sedentary (69% vs 67%), light (14% vs 12%), moderate (11% vs 10%), and vigorous (6% vs 9%) categories. Recalls overestimated percent time per day in moderate and vigorous activity relative to TTM (22.8% vs 8.9%, P < 0.0001). Boys reported higher percent of time than girls in vigorous activity (10.9% vs 3.9%, P < 0.05). Girls reported more time than boys (9.5% vs 6.4%, P < 0.05) in light activities. No significant sex differences were observed using TTM. CONCLUSIONS: Missing TTM data did not bias estimates of activity levels. Self-reported activity measures overestimated moderate and vigorous activity relative to the TTM and varied by sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise is the property of Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	PURPOSE: To examine significance of missing data and describe physical activity patterns using recall and accelerometer measures among youth in a nonlaboratory setting. METHODS: Fifty-four middle-school students wore TriTrac-R3D monitors (TTM) and completed an interviewer-prompted 24-h recall during two, 5-d monitoring sessions. We coded 2860 30-min recall intervals to a standard MET compendium. Complete TTM data were gathered for 43 students. Ordinal multinomial models tested for bias in TTM estimates of activity levels due to: 1) exclusion of subjects with incomplete TTM data, and 2) exclusion of intervals within days due to missing TTM data. RESULTS: Students with complete monitor data had an average 12.5 +/- 0.9 monitored hours per day over 5.5 +/- 2.1 d. Compared with students with incomplete monitoring data, they reported similar proportions of recall 30-min intervals at sedentary (68% vs 69%), light (14% vs 15%), moderate (11% vs 10%), and vigorous (7% vs 6%) intensity levels (P = 0.63). The proportion of recall intervals (within days) with and without simultaneous monitoring data did not differ by activity intensity (P = 0.64) across sedentary (69% vs 67%), light (14% vs 12%), moderate (11% vs 10%), and vigorous (6% vs 9%) categories. Recalls overestimated percent time per day in moderate and vigorous activity relative to TTM (22.8% vs 8.9%, P < 0.0001). Boys reported higher percent of time than girls in vigorous activity (10.9% vs 3.9%, P < 0.05). Girls reported more time than boys (9.5% vs 6.4%, P < 0.05) in light activities. No significant sex differences were observed using TTM. CONCLUSIONS: Missing TTM data did not bias estimates of activity levels. Self-reported activity measures overestimated moderate and vigorous activity relative to the TTM and varied by sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	01959131
DOI:	10.1249/01.mss.0000117112.76067.d3