874 resultados para VALIDITY OF TESTS


Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Mode of access: Internet.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Bibliographical footnotes.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Screening by whole-body clinical skin examination may improve early diagnosis of melanoma and reduce mortality, but objective scientific evidence of this is lacking. As part of a randomized controlled trial of population screening for melanoma in Queensland, Australia, the authors assessed the validity of self-reported history of whole-body skin examination and factors associated with accuracy of recall among 2,704 participants in 2001. Approximately half of the participants were known to have undergone whole-body skin examination within the past 3 years at skin screening clinics conducted as part of the randomized trial. All positive and negative self-reports were compared with screening clinic records. Where possible, reports of skin examinations conducted outside the clinics were compared with private medical records. The validity of self-reports of whole-body skin examination in the past 3 years was high: Concordance between self-reports and medical records was 93.7%, sensitivity was 92.0%, and specificity was 96.3%. Concordance was lower (74.3%) for self-reports of examinations conducted in the past 12 months, and there was evidence of telescoping in recall for this more recent time frame. In multivariate analysis, women and younger participants more accurately recalled their history of skin examinations. Participants with a history of melanoma did not differ from other participants in their accuracy of recall.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Purpose: To evaluate the validity of a uniaxial accelerometer (MTI Actigraph) for measuring physical activity in people with acquired brain injury (ABI) using portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed K4b(2)) as a criterion measure. Methods: Fourteen people with ABI and related gait pattern impairment (age 32 +/- 8 yr) wore an MTI Actigraph that measured activity (counts(.)min-(1)) and a Cosmed K4b(2) that measured oxygen consumption (mL(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) during four activities: quiet sitting (QS) and comfortable paced (CP), brisk paced (BP), and fast paced (FP) walking. MET levels were predicted from Actigraph counts using a published equation and compared with Cosmed measures. Predicted METs for each of the 56 activity bouts (14 participants X 4 bouts) were classified (light, moderate, vigorous, or very vigorous intensity) and compared with Cosmed-based classifications. Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that walking condition intensities were significantly different (P < 0.05) and the Actigraph detected the differences. Overall correlation between measured and predicted METs was positive, moderate, and significant (r = 0.74). Mean predicted METs were not significantly different from measured for CP and BP, but for FP walking, predicted METs were significantly less than measured (P < 0.05). The Actigraph correctly classified intensity for 76.8% of all activity bouts and 91.5% of light- and moderate-intensity bouts. Conclusions: Actigraph counts provide a valid index of activity across the intensities investigated in this study. For light to moderate activity, Actigraph-based estimates of METs are acceptable for group-level analysis and are a valid means of classifying activity intensity. The Actigraph significantly underestimated higher intensity activity, although, in practice, this limitation will have minimal impact on activity measurement of most community-dwelling people with ABI.

Relevância:

100.00% 100.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment tool suitable for doctors to use to identify inactive patients in the primary care setting. Methods: Volunteer family doctors (n = 8) screened consenting patients (n = 75) for physical activity participation using a brief physical activity assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was assessed within one week (n = 71). Validity was assessed against an objective physical activity monitor (computer science and applications accelerometer; n = 42). Results: The brief physical activity assessment tool produced repeatable estimates of sufficient total physical activity, correctly classifying over 76% of cases (kappa 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72). The validity coefficient was reasonable (kappa 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69), with good percentage agreement (71%). Conclusions: The brief physical activity assessment tool is a reliable instrument, with validity similar to that of more detailed self report measures of physical activity. It is a tool that can be used efficiently in routine primary healthcare services to identify insufficiently active patients who may need physical activity advice.