3种体力活动测量问卷的效度研究  

A validity study of three physical activity questionnaires

作　　者：胡斌[1,2] 林烂芳[1,2] 袁子宇[2] 杨亚军[1,2] 吕明[1,3,4] 叶为民[5] 俞顺章[6] 金力[1,2] 王笑峰[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]复旦大学生命科学学院现代人类学教育部重点实验室,上海200433 [2]复旦大学泰州健康科学研究院 [3]山东大学公共卫生学院 [4]山东大学齐鲁医院临床流行病学研究室 [5]瑞典卡罗林斯卡医学院医学流行病学与生物统计系 [6]复旦大学公共卫生学院

出　　处：《现代预防医学》2013年第16期3061-3065,共5页Modern Preventive Medicine

基　　金：国家科技支撑项目(2008BAI52B03;2011BAI09B02);国家自然科学基金(30890034)

摘　　要：目的使用计步器作为标准在泰州人群中评价国际体力活动短问卷中文版(IPAQ-S-C)、全球体力活动问卷中文版(GPAQ-C)以及总能量消耗问卷中文版(TEEQ-C)的效度,并分别比较IPAQ-S-C、GPAQ-C与TEEQ-C间的同时效度以及IPAQ-S-C与GPAQ-C之间的同时效度。方法随机抽取泰州市5个乡镇社区300人,连续7d佩戴计步器,并在7d间隔期前后进行IPAQ-S-C、GPAQ-C和TEEQ-C两次调查。分别选择计步器和问卷作为标准考察效度。结果最终进入分析191人。与TEEQ-C相比较,IPAQ-S-C和GPAQ-C一周重度体力活动的同时效度相关系数分别为为0.32(P﹤0.001)与0.28(P﹤0.001),其余各分类体力活动的同时效度相关系数在0.4～0.6(P﹤0.001)范围之间。GPAQ-C与IPAQ-S-C相比,各分类体力活动的同时效度相关系数大部分在0.47～0.77(P﹤0.001)范围之间。3份问卷测量的一周静坐时间、GPAQ-C测量的一周步行/骑自行车时间与计步器一周总步数的相关系数分别为-0.20、-0.24、-0.22和0.21(P﹤0.005)。结论 IPAQ-S-C、GPAQ-C分别与TEEQ-C相比同时效度可以接受,IPAQ-S-C与GPAQ-C相比同时效度较好;计步器作为标准应用于问卷标准效度研究时需谨慎评价。OBJECTIVE To assess the validity of International Physical Activity questionnaire-Short-Chinese version （I- PAQ-S-C）, Global Physical Activity Questionnaire-Chinese version （GPAQ-C）, and Total Energy Expenditure Question- naire-Chinese version （TEEQ-C） by using pedometer as a criterion and to compare the concurrent validity of IPAQ-S-C and GPAQ-C with TEEQ-C, and IPAQ-S-C with GPAQ-C, respectively. METHODS Three hundred subjects were randomly sampled from five communities in Taizhou. The IPAQ-S-C, GPAQ-C, and TEEQ-C were administered before and after a 7- day time interval. During the time interval every participant was required to wear a pedometer. The validity of 3 physical activ- ity questionnaires （PAQs） was assessed by comparing with pedometer. RESULTS Overall, 191 subjects were finally ana- lyzed. The concurrent validity coefficients of heavy physical activity （PA） of IPAQ-S-C and GPAQ-C were 0.32 and 0.28, respectively, compared with those of TEEQ-C. Other concurrent validity coefficients of physical activity （PA） sub-compo- nent for IPAQ-S-C and GPAQ-C ranged from 0.4 to 0.6. In addition, the total sedentary hours per week of IPAQ-S-C, GPAQ-C and TEEQ-C were negatively correlated with those of the criterion pedometer （Spearman r = -0.24, -0.20 and- 0.22, P 〈 0.005）. Only the total transport-related domain hours per week of GPAQ-C had a statistically correlation with the criterion pedometer （Spearman r = 0.21, P 〈 0.005）. CONCLUSIONS Compared with TEEQ-C, the concurrent validity of IPAQ-S-C and GPAQ-C was acceptable. Compared with GPAQ-C, the concurrent validity of IPAQ-S-C was better. It should evaluate the using of pedometer as a criterion for validity of PAQs appraisal carefully.

关 键 词：效度 计步器 体力活动 问卷 

分 类 号：R18[医药卫生—流行病学]