↓ Skip to main content

Criterion-related validity of self-reported stair climbing in older adults

Overview of attention for article published in Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Criterion-related validity of self-reported stair climbing in older adults
Published in
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40520-017-0761-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Higueras-Fresnillo, Irene Esteban-Cornejo, Pablo Gasque, Oscar L. Veiga, David Martinez-Gomez

Abstract

Stair climbing is an activity of daily living that might contribute to increase levels of physical activity (PA). To date, there is no study examining the validity of climbing stairs assessed by self-report. The aim of this study was, therefore, to examine the validity of estimated stair climbing from one question included in a common questionnaire compared to a pattern-recognition activity monitor in older adults. A total of 138 older adults (94 women), aged 65-86 years (70.9 ± 4.7 years), from the IMPACT65 + study participated in this validity study. Estimates of stair climbing were obtained from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) PA questionnaire. An objective assessment of stair climbing was obtained with the Intelligent Device for Energy Expenditure and Activity (IDEEA) monitor. The correlation between both methods to assess stair climbing was fair (ρ = 0.22, p = 0.008 for PA energy expenditure and ρ = 0.26, p = 0.002 for duration). Mean differences between self-report and the IDEEA were 7.96 ± 10.52 vs. 9.88 ± 3.32 METs-min/day for PA energy expenditure, and 0.99 ± 1.32 vs. 1.79 ± 2.02 min/day for duration (both Wilcoxon test p < 0.001). Results from the Bland-Altman analysis indicate that bias between both instruments were -1.91 ± 10.30 METs-min/day and -0.80 ± 1.99 min/day, and corresponding limits of agreement for the two instruments were from 18.27 to -22.10 METs-min/day and from 3.09 to -4.70 min/day, respectively. Our results indicate that self-reported stair climbing has modest validity to accurately rank old age participants, and underestimates both PAEE and its duration, as compared with an objectively measured method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Unspecified 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 18 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Unspecified 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 21 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#1,086
of 1,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,498
of 323,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aging Clinical and Experimental Research
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.