回顾性评估初潮年龄的可靠性

Q2 Social Sciences Anthropological Review Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.18778/1898-6773.86.4.06
R. Żarów, Agnieszka Woronkowicz, Barbara Spring, Małgorzata Kowal, J. Brudecki
{"title":"回顾性评估初潮年龄的可靠性","authors":"R. Żarów, Agnieszka Woronkowicz, Barbara Spring, Małgorzata Kowal, J. Brudecki","doi":"10.18778/1898-6773.86.4.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The age of the first menstruation is one of the indicators for assessing the course of puberty. It is also a sensitive indicator of the economic situation of individual professional groups or societies, and the low average age of menarche is widely recognized as a marker of society’s well-being. The aim of the study was to analyse the reliability of the retrospective method of assessing the age at menarche by comparing the results to the age obtained from continuous research. Data regarding the age at menarche came from longitudinal somatic development and physical fitness studies conducted between 1976 and 2022. In 2022, 47 women were examined. In continuous studies, the prospective method was used in the assessment of the age of first menstruation while in the 2004 and 2022 studies a retrospective method was applied. Only in 4 out of 47 women the age of the first menstruation declared in 2004 and 2022 (the women were 32–34 and 50–52 years old, respectively) was consistent with the one found in continuous studies. In other cases, there was a discrepancy between the age found in continuous studies and self-reported in 2004 or 2022 or between the age stated in 2004 and 2022. Of those women who were present for the 2022 study, 36 had information about the age of first menstruation from continuous studies and the age of menarche in 2004 was given. For this sample the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation of the age at menarche were calculated. It was found that the retrospective method often used in the assessment of the age of the first menstruation is not fully reliable, as the average discrepancy in the assessment ranged from nearly 1 month (0.05 years) to over 2 months (0.19 years) compared to the prospective method. Women surveyed in 2004 determined the age of the first menstruation more accurately compared to statements obtained 18 years later from the same women. This study suggests that long-term memory (LTM) of a significant life event of every woman is unreliable, as indicated by the difference in the declared age of the first menstruation of women examined in 2004 and 2022, which, in individual cases, was up to 3, 4 or 5 years.","PeriodicalId":39218,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Review","volume":"61 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of retrospective assessment of the age of first menstruation\",\"authors\":\"R. Żarów, Agnieszka Woronkowicz, Barbara Spring, Małgorzata Kowal, J. Brudecki\",\"doi\":\"10.18778/1898-6773.86.4.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The age of the first menstruation is one of the indicators for assessing the course of puberty. It is also a sensitive indicator of the economic situation of individual professional groups or societies, and the low average age of menarche is widely recognized as a marker of society’s well-being. The aim of the study was to analyse the reliability of the retrospective method of assessing the age at menarche by comparing the results to the age obtained from continuous research. Data regarding the age at menarche came from longitudinal somatic development and physical fitness studies conducted between 1976 and 2022. In 2022, 47 women were examined. In continuous studies, the prospective method was used in the assessment of the age of first menstruation while in the 2004 and 2022 studies a retrospective method was applied. Only in 4 out of 47 women the age of the first menstruation declared in 2004 and 2022 (the women were 32–34 and 50–52 years old, respectively) was consistent with the one found in continuous studies. In other cases, there was a discrepancy between the age found in continuous studies and self-reported in 2004 or 2022 or between the age stated in 2004 and 2022. Of those women who were present for the 2022 study, 36 had information about the age of first menstruation from continuous studies and the age of menarche in 2004 was given. For this sample the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation of the age at menarche were calculated. It was found that the retrospective method often used in the assessment of the age of the first menstruation is not fully reliable, as the average discrepancy in the assessment ranged from nearly 1 month (0.05 years) to over 2 months (0.19 years) compared to the prospective method. Women surveyed in 2004 determined the age of the first menstruation more accurately compared to statements obtained 18 years later from the same women. This study suggests that long-term memory (LTM) of a significant life event of every woman is unreliable, as indicated by the difference in the declared age of the first menstruation of women examined in 2004 and 2022, which, in individual cases, was up to 3, 4 or 5 years.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropological Review\",\"volume\":\"61 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.86.4.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18778/1898-6773.86.4.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

初潮年龄是评估青春期进程的指标之一。它也是反映个别职业群体或社会经济状况的敏感指标,平均初潮年龄低被广泛认为是社会福祉的标志。这项研究的目的是通过将评估初潮年龄的结果与连续研究得出的年龄进行比较,分析回顾性评估初潮年龄方法的可靠性。有关初潮年龄的数据来自 1976 年至 2022 年期间进行的纵向躯体发育和体能研究。2022 年有 47 名妇女接受了检查。在连续性研究中,采用了前瞻性方法评估初潮年龄,而在 2004 年和 2022 年的研究中则采用了回顾性方法。在 47 名妇女中,只有 4 名妇女在 2004 年和 2022 年宣布的初潮年龄(分别为 32-34 岁和 50-52 岁)与连续性研究中发现的年龄一致。在其他情况下,连续性研究发现的年龄与 2004 年或 2022 年自我报告的年龄不一致,或者 2004 年和 2022 年申报的年龄不一致。在参加 2022 年研究的妇女中,有 36 人从连续性研究中获得了初潮年龄的信息,并提供了 2004 年的初潮年龄。对这一样本计算了初潮年龄的算术平均数和标准差。结果发现,在评估初潮年龄时经常使用的回顾性方法并不完全可靠,因为与前瞻性方法相比,评估的平均差异从近 1 个月(0.05 岁)到超过 2 个月(0.19 岁)不等。2004 年接受调查的妇女与 18 年后从同一妇女那里获得的陈述相比,对初潮年龄的判断更为准确。这项研究表明,2004 年和 2022 年接受调查的妇女申报的初潮年龄存在差异,个别情况下差异高达 3 年、4 年或 5 年,这表明每位妇女对人生重大事件的长期记忆(LTM)并不可靠。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability of retrospective assessment of the age of first menstruation
The age of the first menstruation is one of the indicators for assessing the course of puberty. It is also a sensitive indicator of the economic situation of individual professional groups or societies, and the low average age of menarche is widely recognized as a marker of society’s well-being. The aim of the study was to analyse the reliability of the retrospective method of assessing the age at menarche by comparing the results to the age obtained from continuous research. Data regarding the age at menarche came from longitudinal somatic development and physical fitness studies conducted between 1976 and 2022. In 2022, 47 women were examined. In continuous studies, the prospective method was used in the assessment of the age of first menstruation while in the 2004 and 2022 studies a retrospective method was applied. Only in 4 out of 47 women the age of the first menstruation declared in 2004 and 2022 (the women were 32–34 and 50–52 years old, respectively) was consistent with the one found in continuous studies. In other cases, there was a discrepancy between the age found in continuous studies and self-reported in 2004 or 2022 or between the age stated in 2004 and 2022. Of those women who were present for the 2022 study, 36 had information about the age of first menstruation from continuous studies and the age of menarche in 2004 was given. For this sample the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation of the age at menarche were calculated. It was found that the retrospective method often used in the assessment of the age of the first menstruation is not fully reliable, as the average discrepancy in the assessment ranged from nearly 1 month (0.05 years) to over 2 months (0.19 years) compared to the prospective method. Women surveyed in 2004 determined the age of the first menstruation more accurately compared to statements obtained 18 years later from the same women. This study suggests that long-term memory (LTM) of a significant life event of every woman is unreliable, as indicated by the difference in the declared age of the first menstruation of women examined in 2004 and 2022, which, in individual cases, was up to 3, 4 or 5 years.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anthropological Review
Anthropological Review Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
The anatomical bases of the 3D digital facial approximation of the Zlatý kůň 1 woman (ca. 43,000 BP) A review on association between menopausal symptoms and cardiovascular risk factors Hominin musical sound production: palaeoecological contexts and self domestication Association between expression level of the miR-320, miR-182, miR-223 and miR-486 and body composition among young Polish female volleyball players Revisiting the cranial variability of the Dmanisi hominins
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1