Qiu H, Huang C, Liu Q, Jiang L, Xue Y, Wu W, Huang Z, Xu J. Reliability and validity of the Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) in Chinese people.
BMJ Open 2021;
11:e048269. [PMID:
34876418 PMCID:
PMC8655532 DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048269]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the reliability and validity of Healthy Fitness Measurement Scale Version 1.0 (HFMS V1.0) for different population cohorts in the city of Guangzhou, Guangdong, China and to provide evidence and tools for further evaluation of healthy fitness of Chinese population and related factors.
DESIGN
Cross-sectional study.
SETTING
Urban neighbourhood and Medical University.
PARTICIPANTS
Elderly people (n=393; mean age 68.27±6.38 years; 53.18% male), university students (n=390; mean age 19.29±1.29 years; 38.21% male) and urban residents (n=393; mean age 32.23±9.41 years; 44.78% male).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcomes were evaluated the reliability and validity of HFMS V1.0 by internal consistency evaluation, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant construct validity, and factor analysis.
RESULTS
The Cronbach's α coefficients for HFMS V1.0 were all greater than 0.85 for overall scale of total samples and three individual groups, and the split-half reliability and intragroup correlation coefficients were both greater than 0.70 (p<0.01). The correlation of each item, dimension and subscales ranged from 0.52 to 0.91 (p < 0.01). A total of 10 factors were screened by exploratory factor analysis with the cumulative contribution rate of 61.40%, basically consistent with the theoretical structure of scale. The confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit: CMIN/DF=3.45, root mean square error of approximation=0.05, GFI=0.91, AGFI=0.90, IFI=0.90, comparative fit index=0.90.
CONCLUSION
HFMS V1.0 showed acceptable reliability and validity in the test of healthy fitness of general population in Guangzhou. This scale could be a reliable measurement tool for evaluation of healthy fitness and potential risk factors.
Collapse