Self-Reported Versus Objectively Assessed Exercise Adherence

Yuen, Hon K.; Wang, Ed; Holthaus, Katy; Vogtle, Laura; Sword, David; Breland, Hazel L.; Kamen, Diane L.

doi:10.5014/ajot.2013.007575

Cited by 21 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Motivations and concerns of participants may, therefore, differ somewhat from those undertaking rehabilitation, particularly as participants were not screened for low walking levels at baseline. However, some similarities to other studies [ 29 ] suggest the findings may apply to rehabilitation situations. It is further possible that participants made greater efforts to be valid as they were aware of being recorded [ 28 ], though qualitative evidence for this was mixed.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…The extensive variability found in our study was supported by another small study of 11 African American women with systemic lupus erythematosus, where the limits of agreement between a diary and WiiFit were −27 to 35 min per session for a 30-min prescription [ 29 ]. It is, therefore, possible that high inter and intraindividual variation is prevalent within diaries but masked by the use of correlational statistics in some validity studies [ 30 , 31 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial

Frost

McClurg

Brady

et al. 2016

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDiaries are the most commonly used adherence measurement method in home-based rehabilitation trials, yet their completion and validity varies widely between trials. We aimed to: (1) generate theory to explain this variation, (2) create an optimised diary and (3) evaluate the optimised diary’s validity.Methods Stage 1. Development: using a multiple case study approach, we collected trialist interviews (n = 7), trial publications (n = 16) and diaries (n = 7) from seven purposively sampled UK rehabilitation trials. We explored return rates, diary designs and trialists’ ideas as to what affected diary completion and validity. Using explanatory case study analysis, we developed a diary optimisation model. Stage 2. Evaluation: we compared a diary optimised according to several model components to one nonoptimised according to the same components in a randomised AB/BA crossover trial. Healthy adults aged 60+ years without mobility impairments undertook a home-based 8-week walking programme. They recorded walking duration and frequency for 4 weeks per diary. We hypothesised that the optimised diary would possess greater validity for self-reported adherence to walking duration (criterion: the Activpal accelerometer), assessed during each diary’s final week. Participants were blinded to the hypothesis. Secondary outcomes included test-retest reliability and acceptability. Ethical approval was granted from Glasgow Caledonian University.ResultsThirty-two out of 33 participants completed the study. Diaries did not significantly differ in validity, reliability or acceptability. Both diaries agreed closely with the Activpal when assessing duration adherence at a group level, however, inter and intraindividual variation in validity was high (mean difference (95 % limits of agreement (LOA): limits of agreement plot the difference between measurements collected using two different methods against their mean and thus assess the extent to which the two measures agree with each other)) optimised diary = 3.09 % (−103.3 to 109.5 %), nonoptimised diary = −0.34 % (−131.1 to 130.5 %), p = 0.732). We found similarly wide LOA for percentage of days adhered to and percentage of walks taken, whilst frequency adherence was underestimated. Participants rated both diaries as low-burden and equal numbers favoured each diary or were neutral. Preference appeared to impact minimally upon validity.ConclusionGroup-level adherence diary data are likely to be valid. However, individual diary data lack validity, which raises concerns if using this data in calculations such as predicting functional outcomes. Different diary designs are likely interchangeable, though unanticipated high variation meant that this study was underpowered.Trial registrationThe trial was not eligible for registration in a clinical trial database as diary measurement property outcomes, not clinical health outcomes of participants, were assessed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1615-7) contains supplementary mate...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial

Frost

McClurg

Brady

et al. 2016

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, poor completion rates for diaries, together with inaccurate recall and self-presentation bias, may further affect validity of this data [12]. Electronic devices such as accelerometers and pedometers can be used to assess adherence [13], but these require the patient to use them systematically, and therefore might only be successful for more adherent patients. Furthermore, electronic devices do not capture specific prescribed exercises [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In fact, Yuen et al. 20 ) compared self-reported duration of home exercises and objective assessment (using Wii-Fit), and different averages of duration were found at 29.5 and 33.3 minutes, respectively. Therefore, using only the self-reported frequency may decrease the validity of a study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcome measures for adherence to home exercises among patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review

Uzawa¹,

Davis

2018

J Phys Ther Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[Purpose] The aim of this study was to investigate what outcome measures are reliable in the evaluation of adherence to home exercises among patients with chronic low back pain. [Methods] A systematic review on articles related to adherence to home exercises for patients with chronic low back pain was conducted, and outcome measures and psychometric properties were extracted and evaluated in terms of validity and reliability. [Results] A total of 4,583 articles were identified, and eight articles were finally included after screening. The identified outcome measures were self-reported frequency, duration and intensity of home exercises and Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire results. Although the internal consistency and criterion validity of the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire results have been proven in the literature, none of the included articles validated the self-reported frequency, duration, and intensity of the home exercises. [Conclusion] Only the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire results were found to be a reliable measure, and further research to validate self-reported outcome measures is required.

show abstract

Self-Reported Versus Objectively Assessed Exercise Adherence

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial

Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial

The development and initial psychometric evaluation of a measure assessing adherence to prescribed exercise: the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS)

Outcome measures for adherence to home exercises among patients with chronic low back pain: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About