Physical activity assessment: a review of methods

Detecting bouts of physical activity in a field setting

The purposes of this study were to assess the TRITRAC and CSA for: (a) interaccelerometer agreement; (b) agreement in detecting patterns of moderate-intensity physical activity; and (c) agreement in detecting walking patterns recorded in a diary. Thirty-one women wore both the TRITRAC and CSA accelerometers for three consecutive days. Interaccelerometer agreement (measured with generalizability coefficients) ranged from .88 to .99. In total, 71.3% of the accelerometers' patterns agreed in length, with CSA patterns being on average significantly longer. Interaccelerometer agreement in detecting patterns of brisk walking, as recorded in a diary, was comparable (69.4%). Interaccelerometer discrepancies may be related in part to the threshold employed by each instrument for classifying moderate intensity patterns.

Assessment of physical activity in older individuals: a doubly labeled water study

We compared the accuracy of two physical activity recall questionnaires and a motion detector in 45- to 84-yr-old women (n = 35) and men (n = 32), using doubly labeled water (DLW) in conjunction with indirect calorimetry as the criterion measure. Subjects were administered the Yale Physical Activity Survey (YPAS) and Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (LTA). Physical activity energy expenditure was determined over a 10-day period by using a Caltrac uniaxial accelerometer and DLW in conjunction with indirect calorimetry. In older women, Minnesota LTA (386 +/- 228 kcal/day) and Caltrac (379 +/- 162 kcal/day) underestimated physical activity by approximately 55% compared with DLW (873 +/- 244 kcal/day). No difference was observed between daily physical activity measured by the YPAS (863 +/- 447 kcal/day) and DLW in older women. In older men, Minnesota LTA (459 +/- 288 kcal/day) and Caltrac (554 +/- 242 kcal/day) underestimated daily physical activity by approximately 50-60% compared with DLW (1,211 +/- 429 kcal/day). No difference was found between physical activity measured by the YPAS (1,107 +/- 612 kcal/day) and DLW in older men. Despite no difference in mean physical activity levels between YPAS and DLW in women and men, Bland and Altman (Lancet 1: 307-310, 1986) analyses demonstrated poor concordance between DLW and YPAS (i.e., limits of agreement = -1,310-1,518 kcal/day). Our data suggest that the Minnesota LTA recall and Caltrac uniaxial accelerometer may significantly underestimate free-living daily physical activity energy expenditure in older women and men. Although the YPAS compares favorably with DLW on a group basis, its use as a proxy measure of individual daily physical activity energy expenditure may be limited in older women and men.

Techniques for measurement and assessment of mobility in rehabilitation: a theoretical approach

OBJECTIVE

Mobility is an important construct in rehabilitation; many instruments have emerged which measure or assess (aspects of) mobility. In the selection or development of an appropriate technique, knowledge about the fundamentals of rehabilitation medicine is needed, as well as about essential characteristics of techniques and fundamental differences between them. The aim of this paper is to classify, assess and discuss current techniques which are or can be used to measure aspects of mobility.

DESIGN

Eight techniques (physical science techniques, clinimetry, observation, diaries, questionnaires, actigraphy, physiological techniques and activity monitors) are classified, assessed and discussed, based on the level of outcome measures, the aspect of mobility they measure, and methodological and practical criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation medicine has a particular need for instruments that enable measurement of outcome measures on the level of activity and role fulfillment. Techniques differ in the type and number of mobility aspects they measure. Furthermore, important differences exist based on methodological and practical criteria. One optimal technique does not exist: the choice of a technique always depends on a complexity of factors, such as clinical problem, research questions, the mobility aspect of interest, required methodological strength, costs and availability.