Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Article Review
Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Article Review
Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Article Review
Lab 6: Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Clark, B. K., Lynch, B. M, Winkler E. A. Gardiner, P. A, Healy, G. N., Dunstan, D. W., & Owen, N (2015). Validity of a multi-context sitting questionnaire across demographically diverse population groups International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 148. Read the Abstract of Clark et al., 2015. As indicated review specific parts of the article for the answers. 1. What is the purpose of the study? 2. What is the gold standard method being used in this study? 3. W hat type of validity testing are they doing (content, criterion, construct)? 4. Which measure is subjective and which is objective? 5. What methods are they using to establish validity? 6. Compare the correlation of the two measurement to the correlation you calculated in your validation lab. What do you think of the correlation found in the study? 7. What is a Bland-Altman plot? Review Figure 1 for a visual. 8.Review Table 2. Compare the mean sitting time from the two devices. How much do participants over- or under-report sitting time? 9. Think about the conclusion. How would this affect a small study conducted with a sitting time survey? How would this affect a million person study with a sitting time survey?
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Article Review completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
Read the Stamatakis & Gill, 2018 article
Stamatakis, E, & Gill J. M (2018) Sitting behaviour and physical activity two sides of the same cardiovascular health coin?
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on Obiective and Subjective Measurement of PA and SED Article Review done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
1.Find the main paper of interest reported on in this editorial and review Figure 2 and summarize the interpretation of that data. Ekelund et al, 2016 (Does physical activity attenuate, or even eliminate, the detrimental association of sitting time with mortality? harmonised meta-analysis of data from more than 1 million men and women).
2. What do Stamatakis & Gill (2018) say about the data that Ekelund’s paper was based off of?
3. Which is a better intervention according to Stamatakis & Gill: Reducing sitting time or increasing physical activity?
4. What data do they present to make this claim?
5. What is the effect of substituting sitting with standing when considering improving health?
lab 7
Read Byrne, Hills, Hunter, Weinsier, & Schutz, 2005 and answer the following questions:
What is the main point of this article?
How does that relate to the typical use of 1 MET being equal to 3.5 ml / kg / min?
- What are the implications of these findings for the field of exercise science / kinesiology?
Read Ainsworth, 2011 and answer the following questions:
What is the compendium of physical activities?
How is it used in research?
- Do the authors address the 1 MET ? 3.5 ml/kg/min issue?
What method is provided by Ainsworth, 2011 to correct for differences in the standard MET value once the individual’s MET value has been determined?
Assume your RMR was measured and was equal to 2.8 ml/kg/min instead of the standard 3.5 ml/kg/min.How would you adjust your energy expenditure to make up for this discrepancy?
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.