Measuring stair use in two office buildings: a comparison between an objective and a self‐reported method
Abstract
Introduction/purpose: Measuring stair use reliably and objectively is complicated and difficult. In this study, stair use was measured at an individual level by using an innovative registration system and was compared with self‐reported data. The purpose of this study was to gain an insight into the comparability of self‐reported stair use vs objectively measured stair use. Methods: Self‐reported and objective stair use was measured in two worksites and was operationalized as how often a subject uses the stairs per week (i.e., stair‐use frequency) and the number of floors covered (up or down) in a week with each use. Analyses were performed by means of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: A number of significant differences in stair use between worksites were found. ICCs of 0.55 and 0.24 for stair‐use frequency were found in worksites 1 and 2, respectively. The ICCs for the number of floors covered were lower at 0.39 and 0.19 for worksites 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusion: The comparability of self‐reported and objectively measured stair use is moderate to poor, and given the independent measurement errors of both methods, this might have been expected. Comparability seemed to be dependent on worksite characteristics.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In an observational study, men more often used stairs in a worksite with visible staircases compared with one with concealed stairs; no differences were seen for women.
“In an observational study, men more often used stairs in a worksite with visible staircases compared with one with concealed stairs; no differences were seen for women.269”
From Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Smoking Habits: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2012) · cites this paper as [269]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 8
- Authors
- Engbers, L. H., Van Poppel, M. N. M., & Van Mechelen, W.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- Venue
- Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03-27
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-171
- ISSN
- 0905-7188 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0838
- OpenAlex
- W2016656143
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Keywords
- stair climbing, office buildings, self-reported data, objective measurement, measurement agreement, registration system
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Workplace
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review