Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author: Mary K. Dinger x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Timothy K. Behrens and Mary K. Dinger

Background:

The purpose of this study was to compare steps·d-1 between an accelerometer and pedometer in 2 free-living samples.

Methods:

Data from 2 separate studies were used for this secondary analysis (Sample 1: N = 99, Male: n = 28, 20.9 ± 1.4 yrs, BMI = 27.2 ± 5.0 kg·m-2, Female: n = 71, 20.9 ± 1.7 yrs, BMI = 22.7 ± 3.0 kg·m-2; Sample 2: N = 74, Male: n = 27, 38.0 ± 9.5 yrs, BMI = 25.7 ± 4.5 kg·m-2, Female: n = 47, 38.7 ± 10.1 yrs, BMI = 24.6 ± 4.0 kg·m-2). Both studies used identical procedures and analytical strategies.

Results:

The mean difference in steps·d-1 for the week was 1643.4 steps·d-1 in Study 1 and 2199.4 steps·d-1 in Study 2. There were strong correlations between accelerometer- and pedometer-determined steps·d-1 in Study 1 (r = .85, P < .01) and Study 2 (r = 0.87, P < .01). Bland-Altman plots indicated agreement without bias between steps recorded from the devices in Study 1 (r = −0.14, P < .17) and Study 2 (r = −0.09, P < .40). Correlations examining the difference between accelerometer–pedometer steps·d-1 and MVPA resulted in small, inverse correlations (range: r = −0.03 to −0.28).

Conclusions:

These results indicate agreement between accelerometer- and pedometer-determined steps·d-1; however, measurement bias may still exist because of known sensitivity thresholds between devices.

Restricted access

Danielle R. Brittain and Mary K. Dinger

Adult lesbians are insufficiently active to achieve health benefits. An 8-week pilot intervention targeting coping skills to overcome barriers, was designed to increase moderate physical activity (MPA) among adult lesbians. Sixteen lesbians aged 29 to 55 years (experimental condition [EC] [n = 10]; control condition [CC] [n = 6] completed measures at baseline and end-program. Mixed repeated-measures ANOVAs used to examine between-group differences in average daily: (a) MPA, (b) task self-efficacy (TSE), and (c) self-regulatory efficacy (SRE) from baseline to end-program, were not significant. Two data trends with moderate effect sizes were identified: (1) the EC maintained 24 minutes/d of MPA (P = .10; d = .43); and (2) TSE was maintained among the EC but decreased for the CC (P = .09; d=.44). Only a small effect size was found (P = .56; d = .16) for SRE. The intervention appears to stem declines in MPA and task-related efficacy beliefs.

Restricted access

Lynda B. Ransdell, Mary K. Dinger, Jennifer Huberty, Kim Miller and Myung-Ah Lee

Restricted access

Kelly R. Rice, Kristiann C. Heesch, Mary K. Dinger and David A. Fields

Background:

Women’s understanding of “moderate-intensity” physical activity (MPA) as presented in the media is not well-understood. This study assessed whether women who are presented a mass-media message about MPA can demonstrate a moderate-intensity walking pace without practicing this pace first.

Methods:

Insufficiently active women (n = 75, age 40 ± 12 years, 76% White) were shown a mass-media description of a MPA recommendation. Forty-one were randomized to also practice a moderate-intensity (55%−70% of maximum heart rate) walk. One month later, participants were asked to demonstrate a 10-minute moderate-intensity walk. Groups were compared on the proportion of participants who walked ≥10 minutes at a moderate intensity.

Results:

At posttest, more participants who received practice at baseline walked at a moderate-intensity ≥10 minutes than those who received no practice (P < .05).

Conclusion:

To understand MPA, it is not enough to simply hear and read a description of MPA. It is essential to practice MPA.

Restricted access

Lynda B. Ransdell, Mary K. Dinger, Stacy Beske and Colleen Cooke

The purpose of this paper is to examine factors related to success in academic publishing for women in exercise science. Two trained investigators conducted hand searches of 7 prominent exercise science journals to ascertain the names of the most prolific women authors between 1991 and 1996. Seventeen (17) women, whose names will not be revealed (due to confidentiality), were identified. Following their identification, women were asked to submit a copy of their vita and complete a questionnaire related to scholarly productivity. Thirteen out of seventeen women agreed to participate in the study, yielding a response rate of 76%. Personal attributes that contributed most to their success in publishing were self-motivation, discipline, and perseverance. Situational or sociological factors mentioned were the availability of mentors, talented collaborators, and institutional or personal support. Some tips for maximizing productivity include having proper preparation and a narrow focus, and developing skills in writing, research design, and analysis. Women reported many gender-related barriers early in their careers, but these barriers faded with experience and reputation establishment. The two most frequent recommendations for ensuring successful collaborations with others were completing work in a timely fashion and being a team player. Sacrifices made for publishing included fewer social interactions and less time for leisure activities and vacations. With the exception of some barriers related to gender, our findings are in agreement with others who have examined correlates of productivity in mixed samples of men and women from a variety of fields.