Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Cerebral Palsy Physical Activity Mesurement

    Uploaded by

    ManuelMartinezMartínez
    1) The authors argue that the systematic review used a non-traditional definition of physical activity that focused on participation rather than the traditional definition of bodily movement producing increased energy expenditure. 2) Three measurement tools (CAPE/PAC, ASKp, and Uptimer) concluded to be valid measures of physical activity in the review are not actually valid for measuring physical activity as traditionally defined. 3) For accurate physical activity research including with children with CP, the review needs to explicitly use the traditional definition of physical activity and re-appraise suitable measurement tools.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cerebral Palsy Physical Activity Mesurement

    Uploaded by

    ManuelMartinezMartínez
    15 views1 page
    1) The authors argue that the systematic review used a non-traditional definition of physical activity that focused on participation rather than the traditional definition of bodily movement producing increased energy expenditure. 2) Three measurement tools (CAPE/PAC, ASKp, and Uptimer) concluded to be valid measures of physical activity in the review are not actually valid for measuring physical activity as traditionally defined. 3) For accurate physical activity research including with children with CP, the review needs to explicitly use the traditional definition of physical activity and re-appraise suitable measurement tools.

    Original Title

    cerebral palsy physical activity mesurement

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The authors argue that the systematic review used a non-traditional definition of physical activity that focused on participation rather than the traditional definition of bodily movement producing increased energy expenditure. 2) Three measurement tools (CAPE/PAC, ASKp, and Uptimer) concluded to be valid measures of physical activity in the review are not actually valid for measuring physical activity as traditionally defined. 3) For accurate physical activity research including with children with CP, the review needs to explicitly use the traditional definition of physical activity and re-appraise suitable measurement tools.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    15 views1 page

    Cerebral Palsy Physical Activity Mesurement

    Uploaded by

    ManuelMartinezMartínez
    1) The authors argue that the systematic review used a non-traditional definition of physical activity that focused on participation rather than the traditional definition of bodily movement producing increased energy expenditure. 2) Three measurement tools (CAPE/PAC, ASKp, and Uptimer) concluded to be valid measures of physical activity in the review are not actually valid for measuring physical activity as traditionally defined. 3) For accurate physical activity research including with children with CP, the review needs to explicitly use the traditional definition of physical activity and re-appraise suitable measurement tools.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE & CHILD NEUROLOGY LETTER TO THE EDITOR

    'Physical activity measurement instruments for children with cerebral


    palsy: a systematic review'
    Dsire B Maltais1, Rita J G van den Berg-Emons2 Scale for Kids – Performance version (ASKp), and the Upti-
    1 Laval University, Quebec City, QC, Canada. 2 Erasmus Medical Center, Department mer are valid measures of physical activity is potentially mis-
    Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. leading since these three tools were neither designed nor
    Correspondence to: Desiree.Maltais@rea.ulaval.ca
    validated as measures of physical activity, as the concept is tra-
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03872.x ditionally defined. According to the test developers, the
    CAPE ⁄ PAC was designed and validated as a measure of chil-
    dren’s participation in everyday activities outside of school.3
    SIR–We read with interest the systematic review of physical
    Although various ‘physical activity’ items are evaluated, these
    activity measurement instruments for children with cerebral
    items are used to assess participation in physical activities and
    palsy (CP) by Capio et al.1 We agree with the authors’ ratio-
    not physical activity, per se. For example, there is no distinc-
    nale for undertaking the review, that ‘the best instrument or
    tion between being pulled on an inner tube (a sedentary,
    combination of instruments to use to measure physical activity
    rather than a physical activity) and diving and swimming very
    among children with CP has not been established comprehen-
    fast underwater (clearly a physical activity). They are both
    sively in previously published literature’.1 It seems to us, how-
    considered a water sport and a child who engaged in the for-
    ever, that the authors employed a non-traditional definition of
    mer could presumably receive the same score for this item as a
    physical activity in their review.
    child who engaged in the latter. As for the ASKp, according to
    Although the concept of physical activity was not explicitly
    its developers it was designed and validated as a measure of
    defined in the article, it appears to have been implicitly defined
    physical disability or physical function.4 Since the final ASKp
    as being very closely related to participation, since the authors
    score includes scores on items such as turning doorknobs or
    stated that, ‘Valid and reliable measures of physical activity
    playing quietly (rather sedentary activities) and items such as
    among children with disabilities such as CP are especially crit-
    running with friends (clearly a physical activity), from a con-
    ical to estimate participation …’1 Physical activity, however, is
    tent validity perspective, the final score does not appear to rep-
    traditionally defined as ‘any bodily movement produced by the
    resent a measure of physical activity, again as it is traditionally
    skeletal muscles that results in a substantial increase over rest-
    understood. It would appear to us that the Uptimer is also not
    ing energy expenditure’.2 We believe it is important that such
    a valid measure of physical activity, in the above mentioned
    a definition be used in the context of physical activity research,
    sense of the term, since the measure does not distinguish
    including research involving children with CP, because it is
    between the time spent standing (a rather sedentary activity)
    this type of definition which underlies the science of physical
    and time spent walking or running (two physical activities).5
    activity research and physical activity recommendations for
    To conclude, while these three tools may be considered
    various populations. To use another definition or definitions,
    valid measures with respect to their intended purposes, we
    even implicitly, could lead to confusion and difficulty compar-
    would suggest that we continue to require a systematic review
    ing results across populations or within a specific population,
    and appraisal of physical activity measures used with, or per-
    such as children with CP.
    haps suitable for, children with CP, a review that explicitly
    We would suggest the authors’ conclusion that the Chil-
    defines physical activity in a manner consistent with the body
    dren’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment ⁄ Prefer-
    of knowledge already developed.
    ences for Activity of Children (CAPE ⁄ PAC), the Activities

    REFERENCES
    1. Capio CM, Sit CH, Abernethy B, Rotor ER. Physical activ- Health: International Proceedings and Consensus Statement. 4. Young NL, Williams JI, Yoshida KK, Wright JG. Measure-
    ity measurement instruments for children with cerebral Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994: 77–88. ment properties of the activities scale for kids. J Clin Epidem-
    palsy: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol 2010; 52: 3. King G, Law M, King S, et al. Children’s Assessment of Par- iol 2000; 53: 125–37.
    908–16. ticipation and Enjoyment (CAPE) and Preferences for Activi- 5. Pirpiris M, Graham HK. Uptime in children with cerebral
    2. Bouchard C, Shephard RJ. Physical activity, fitness and ties of Children (PAC). San Antonio, TX: Psychological palsy. J Pediatr Orthop 2004; 24: 521–8.
    health: the model and key concepts. In: Bouchard C, Shep- Corp., 2004.
    hard RJ, Stephen T, editors. Physical Activity, Fitness and

    ª The Authors. Journal compilation ª Mac Keith Press 2011 191

    You might also like