Key result
A novel stage algorithm for physical activity demonstrated high sensitivity (44%-99%) and variable specificity (3%-88%) in participants from cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation clinics.
Why the study?
Does a novel stage algorithm accurately assess physical activity stages in patients in orthopedic and cardiac rehabilitation?
Cross-Sectional (n=366)
Yes
Does a novel stage algorithm accurately assess physical activity stages in patients in orthopedic and cardiac rehabilitation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
A novel stage algorithm for physical activity demonstrated acceptable measurement qualities for classifying intentions and behaviors in cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation patients.
OBJECTIVE: For stage-matched interventions, individuals must be classified with respect to their previous behaviors and in conjunction with their future intentions. A novel procedure for the assessment of stages in physical activity was developed. For this, individuals' activity and their regarding intentions were compared with recommended levels of activity. The aim was to examine the psychometric properties. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study, stages were assessed in 366 study participants (84 in cardiac and 282 in orthopedic rehabilitation) in terms of their previous physical activity and their intention to perform recommended activity levels in the future. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stages of change were compared to self-reported behavior, intention, planning, self-efficacy, risk perception, pros, cons, and social support. Misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, non-linear trends, and planned contrasts were computed. RESULTS: In comparison to previous studies, sensitivity (44%-99%) was high and specificity was similar or low (3%-88%), depending on the type of validation outcome selected. When using less demanding criteria (i.e., less intensive activity), measurement quality decreased, although not always significantly. Applying contrast analyses, more than half of the predicted stage differences were confirmed. No main differences between orthopedic and cardiac, ambulant and stationary rehabilitation appeared and no interactions were found. CONCLUSION: The stage algorithm proved to have acceptable measurement qualities in study participants recruited in both cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation. Especially in detecting Intenders and Actors the stage algorithm performed well. Mechanisms of adopting and maintaining recommended activity levels seem to operate equally in both groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lippke et al. (2010) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation (n=366). Stage algorithm for physical activity was evaluated on Psychometric properties including sensitivity and specificity compared to self-reported behavior and intentions. A novel stage algorithm for physical activity demonstrated high sensitivity (44%-99%) and variable specificity (3%-88%) in participants from cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation clinics.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: