988368
شنبه 3 آذر 1403
دوره 16، شماره 4 - ( December 1397 )
جلد 16 شماره 4 صفحات 394-387 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Sourtiji H, Rassafiani M, Hosseini S A, Motlagh M E, Noroozi M. Comparing Time-Use Estimates of Two Different Time Diary Methods. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal 2018; 16 (4) :387-394
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-876-fa.html
URL: http://irj.uswr.ac.ir/article-1-876-fa.html
Comparing Time-Use Estimates of Two Different Time Diary Methods. مجله انگلیسی زبان توانبخشی. 1397; 16 (4) :387-394
چکیده: (3989 مشاهده)
Objectives: Time-use has become an important field of research in social and medical sciences. Time diary is the most popular method for measuring time-use that has 2 different methods of administration including yesterday and tomorrow diary. The present study aimed to compare these methods of measuring time-use.
Methods: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted on 256 under 5-year-old healthy children that were selected using multistage stratified cluster sampling method in 2017. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman correlation coefficient, 2-way ANOVA, Independent t-test and Mann–Whitney U Test.
Results: Participants spent 1476.23 min/d on aggregate daily occupations, according to the yesterday-diary estimate, and 1492.14 min/d according to the tomorrow-diary. In one area of occupation, the yesterday and tomorrow diary estimates differed slightly. Two-way ANOVA found no significant interaction between diary method and age category (F5,234=1.222, P=0.300) and no significant main effect of diary method (F1,234 =0.830). While, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for age category (F5,234=4.91, P=0.00). There were no significant mean differences in the number of occupational repertoires between the participants of yesterday and tomorrow diary groups. Likewise, there were no significant differences in the number of verbatim of the two groups.
Discussion: The findings of our study indicated no difference between yesterday and tomorrow diaries estimates in terms of measuring under 5-year-old children’s time-use.
Methods: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted on 256 under 5-year-old healthy children that were selected using multistage stratified cluster sampling method in 2017. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Pearson correlation coefficient, Spearman correlation coefficient, 2-way ANOVA, Independent t-test and Mann–Whitney U Test.
Results: Participants spent 1476.23 min/d on aggregate daily occupations, according to the yesterday-diary estimate, and 1492.14 min/d according to the tomorrow-diary. In one area of occupation, the yesterday and tomorrow diary estimates differed slightly. Two-way ANOVA found no significant interaction between diary method and age category (F5,234=1.222, P=0.300) and no significant main effect of diary method (F1,234 =0.830). While, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect for age category (F5,234=4.91, P=0.00). There were no significant mean differences in the number of occupational repertoires between the participants of yesterday and tomorrow diary groups. Likewise, there were no significant differences in the number of verbatim of the two groups.
Discussion: The findings of our study indicated no difference between yesterday and tomorrow diaries estimates in terms of measuring under 5-year-old children’s time-use.
فهرست منابع
1. Rees G. Children's activities and time-use: Variations between and within 16 countries. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017; 80:78-87. [DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.057] [DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.057]
2. Sourtiji H, Rassafiani M, Hosseini SA, Mohammadian F. [The relationship between the pattern of time-use and aspects of growth and development of children based on the levels of International Classification of Functioning (ICF) (Persian)]. Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation. 2017; 6(3):86-98. [DOI:10.22038/JPSR.2017.14007.1297]
3. Pentland WE, McColl MA. Application of time use research to the study of life with a disability. In: Pentland WE, Harvey As, Lawton P, McColl MA, editors. Time Use Research in the Social Sciences. Berlin: Springer; 2002. [DOI:10.1007/b107540] [DOI:10.1007/b107540]
4. Sayyid Salman R, Farida F. Time-use surveys: Methods, uses and limitations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 2011; 2(12):925.
5. Krueger AB, Kahneman D, Fischler C, Schkade D, Schwarz N, Stone AA. Time-use and subjective well-being in France and the US. Social Indicators Research. 2009; 93(1):7-18. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-008-9415-4] [DOI:10.1007/s11205-008-9415-4]
6. Kan MY, Pudney S. Measurement error in stylized and diary data on time-use. Sociological Methodology. 2008; 38(1):101-32. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00197.x] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00197.x]
7. Juster FT, Ono H, Stafford FP. An assessment of alternative measures of time-use. Sociological Methodology. 2003; 33(1):19-54. [DOI:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2003.t01-1-00126.x] [DOI:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2003.t01-1-00126.x]
8. Gershuny J. Time-use surveys and the measurement of national well-being. Oxford: Centre for Time-use Research; 2011. [PMID]
9. Samaniego F, Nordhaus W, DaVanzo J, Bradburn N, Altonji J, Ver Ploeg M. Time-use measurement and research: Report of a workshop. Washington: National Academies Press; 2000.
10. Dunham J. American time use: Who spends how long at what. New York: New Strategist; 2007.
11. Marini MM, Shelton BA. Measuring household work: Recent experience in the United States. Social Science Research. 1993; 22(4):361-82. [DOI:10.1006/ssre.1993.1018] [DOI:10.1006/ssre.1993.1018]
12. Schulz F, Grunow D. Comparing diary and survey estimates on time-use. European Sociological Review. 2011; 28(5):622-32. [DOI:10.1093/esr/jcr030] [DOI:10.1093/esr/jcr030]
13. Division of Infectious Diseases. Guideline to producing statistics on time-use: Measuring paid and unpaid work. New York: Capacity Development United Nations; 2004.
14. Juster FT. Response errors in the measurement of time-use. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1986; 81(394):390-402. [DOI:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478283] [DOI:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478283]
15. Chatzitheochari S, Fisher K, Gilbert E, Calderwood L, Huskinson T, Cleary A, et al. Using new technologies for time diary data collection: Instrument design and data quality findings from a mixed-mode pilot survey. Social Indicators Research. 2017; 137(1):379-90. [DOI:10.1007/s11205-017-1569-5] [PMID] [PMCID]
16. Sayer LC, Freedman VA, Bianchi SM. Gender, time-use, and aging. In: Binstock R, George Lk, editors. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2016. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-417235-7.00008-1] [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-417235-7.00008-1]
17. Gersbuny J, Sullivan O. The sociological uses of time-use diary analysis. European Sociological Review. 1998; 14(1):69-85. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018228] [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a018228]
18. Wright J. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015.
19. Kelly P, Thomas E, Doherty A, Harms T, Burke Ó, Gershuny J, et al. Developing a method to test the validity of 24 hour time-use diaries using wearable cameras: A feasibility pilot. PLOS One. 2015; 10(12):e0142198. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0142198] [PMID] [PMCID] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0142198]
20. Vikat A, Boko D. Guidelines for harmonising time use surveys. Geneva: Conference of European Statisticians; 2013.
21. Naciones Unidas, United Nations Statistical Division. Guide to producing statistics on time-use: Measuring paid and unpaid work. New York: United Nations Publications; 2005.
22. Gershuny J, Smith R. Report to the central statistical office on the development of a simple time diary schedule. ESRC Research Centre on Microsocial Change. Colchester: University of Essex; 1995. [PMID] [PMID]
23. Robinson JP. Time-diary research and human exposure assessment: Some methodological considerations. Atmospheric Environment. 1988; 22(10):2085-92. [DOI:10.1016/0004-6981(88)90120-5.] [DOI:10.1016/0004-6981(88)90120-5]
24. Robinson JP, Godbey G. Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. Oxford: University Press; 1997.
25. Belli RF, Alwin DF. Calendar and time diary methods in life course research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2009. [DOI:10.4135/9781412990295]
26. Gershuny J, Harms T, Doherty A, Thomas E, Milton K, Kelly P, et al. CAPTURE24: Testing self-report time-use diaries against objective instruments in real time. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2017.
27. Jara Díaz S, Rosales Salas J. Understanding time-use: Daily or weekly data? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2015; 76:38-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.009.] [DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.009]
28. Sonnenberg B, Riediger M, Wrzus C, Wagner GG. Measuring time-use in surveys- concordance of survey and experience sampling measures. Social Science Research. 2012; 41(5):1037-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.013.] [DOI:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.013]
29. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017; 68 (Suppl. 1): S1–S4. [DOI:10.5014/ajot.2014.682006] [DOI:10.5014/ajot.2014.682006]
30. Robinson JP, Godbey G. Busyness as usual. Social Research: An International Quarterly. 2005; 72(2):407-26.
31. Hunt E, McKay EA. A scoping review of time-use research in occupational therapy and occupational science. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2015; 22(1):1-12. [DOI:10.3109/11038128.2014.934918] [PMID] [DOI:10.3109/11038128.2014.934918]
