Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Nicholas Burton x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Nicholas Burton and Cheri Bradish

This research examined the efforts of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to frame ambush marketing as an ethically or morally dubious practice and thus influence consumer opinion. After an extensive documentary content analysis of internal Olympic-marketing and Games-development archival materials from the International Olympic Committee’s Library and Olympic Studies Centre, the study’s findings offer new insight into the IOC’s overt influence on ambush discourse as a strategic communication objective in combatting ambush marketing. Results evidence a deliberate attempt on the part of stakeholders to employ “name and shame” public relations and educational campaigns to position ambush marketing as ethically objectionable. In thus examining the discursive power wielded by the IOC, the study offers new perspective on the implications of such ethical framing and illustrates the way that ambush-marketing research and conceptualizations have been defined by rights holders’ influence and censure.

Restricted access

Helen Elizabeth Brown, Nicola Burton, Nicholas David Gilson, and Wendy Brown

Background:

An emerging area of interest in workplace health is presenteeism; the measurable extent to which physical or psychosocial symptoms, conditions and disease adversely affect the work productivity of those who choose to remain at work. Given established links between presenteeism and health, and health and physical activity, presenteeism could be an important outcome in workplace physical activity research. This study provides a narrative review of questionnaires for use in such research.

Methods:

Eight self-report measures of presenteeism were identified. Information regarding development, constructs measured and psychometric properties was extracted from relevant articles.

Results:

Questionnaires were largely self-administered, had 4–44 items, and recall periods ranging from 1 week to 1 year. Items were identified as assessing work performance, physical tolerance, psychological well-being and social or role functioning. Samples used to test questionnaires were predominantly American male employees, with an age range of 30–59 years. All instruments had undergone psychometric assessment, most commonly discriminant and construct validity.

Conclusion:

Based on instrument characteristics, the range of conceptual foci covered and acceptable measurement properties, the Health and Work Questionnaire, Work Ability Index, and Work Limitations Questionnaire are suggested as most suitable for further exploring the relationship between physical activity and presenteeism.

Restricted access

Kayla J. Nuss, Nicholas A. Hulett, Alden Erickson, Eric Burton, Kyle Carr, Lauren Mooney, Jacob Anderson, Ashley Comstock, Ethan J. Schlemer, Lucas J. Archambault, and Kaigang Li

Objective: To validate and compare the accuracy of energy expenditure (EE) and step counts measured by ActiGraph accelerometers (ACT) at dominant and nondominant wrist and hip sites. Methods: Thirty young adults (15 females, age 22.93 ± 3.30 years) wore four ActiGraph wGT3X accelerometers while walking and running on a treadmill for 7 min at seven different speeds (1.7, 2.5, 3.4, 4.2, 5.0, 5.5, and 6.0 mph). The EE from each ACT was calculated using the Freedson Adult equation, and the “worn on the wrist” option was selected for the wrist data. Indirect calorimetry and manually counted steps were used as criterion measures. Mean absolute percentage error and two one-sided test procedures for equivalence were used for the analyses. Results: All ACTs underestimated the EE with mean absolute percentage errors over 30% for wrist placement and over 20% for hip placement. The wrist-worn ACTs underestimated the step count with mean absolute percentage errors above 30% for both dominant and nondominant placements. The hip-worn ACTs accurately assessed steps for the whole sample and for women and men (p < .001 to .05 for two one-sided tests procedures), but not at speeds slower than 2.0 mph. Conclusion: Neither hip nor wrist placements assess EE accurately. More algorithms and methods to derive EE estimates from wrist-worn ACTs must be developed and validated. For step counts, both dominant and nondominant hip placements, but not wrist placements, lead to accurate results for both men and women.