Issues and future directions in assessing physical activity: An introduction to the conference proceedings

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Volumn 71, Issue , 2000, Pages 2-7

  Wood, Terry M ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Measurement; Physical activity; Reliability; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 85007873308     PISSN: 02701367     EISSN: 21683824     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2000.11082779     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. McKenzie, T.I., Sallis, J.F., & Nader, P.R. (1991). The SOFIT instrument: System for observing fitness instruction time. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, 195–205.
2. Montoye, H.J., Kemper, H.G.G., Saris, W.H.M., & Washburn, R.A. (1996). Measuring physical activity and energy expenditure. Human Kinetics.
3. Safrit, M.J., Cohen, A.S., & Costa, M.G. (1989). Item response theory and the measurement of motor behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 325–335.
4. Spray, J.A. (1987). Recent developments in measurement and possible applications to the measurement of psychomotor behavior. Research Quarterly forExerci.se and Sport, 58, 203–209.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
6. Wood, T.M. (1987). Putting item response theory into perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 58, 216–220.
7. Zhu, W. (1998). Test equating: What, why, and how? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 11–23.
8. Zhu, W. & Cole, E.L. (1996). Many-faceted Rasch calibration of a gross-motor instrument. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 24–34.