Abstract
BackgroundBehavioural patterns are typically derived using unsupervised multivariate methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), latent profile analysis (LPA) and cluster analysis (CA). Comparability and congruence between the patterns derived from these methods has not been previously investigated, thus it’s unclear whether patterns from studies using different methods are directly comparable. This study aimed to compare behavioural patterns derived across diet, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep domains, using PCA, LPA and CA in a single dataset.MethodsParent-report and accelerometry data from the second wave (2011/12; child age 6-8y, n = 432) of the HAPPY cohort study (Melbourne, Australia) were used to derive behavioural patterns using PCA, LPA and CA. Standardized variables assessing diet (intake of fruit, vegetable, sweet, and savoury discretionary items), physical activity (moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity [MVPA] from accelerometry, organised sport duration and outdoor playtime from parent report), sedentary behaviour (sedentary time from accelerometry, screen time, videogames and quiet playtime from parent report) and sleep (daily sleep duration) were included in the analyses. For each method, commonly used criteria for pattern retention were applied.ResultsPCA produced four patterns whereas LPA and CA each generated three patterns. Despite the number and characterisation of the behavioural patterns derived being non-identical, each method identified a healthy, unhealthy and a mixed pattern. Three common underlying themes emerged across the methods for each type of pattern: (i) High fruit and vegetable intake and high outdoor play (“healthy”); (ii) poor diet (either low fruit and vegetable intake or high discretionary food intake) and high sedentary behaviour (“unhealthy”); and (iii) high MVPA, poor diet (as defined above) and low sedentary time (“mixed”).ConclusionWithin this sample, despite differences in the number of patterns derived by each method, a good degree of concordance across pattern characteristics was seen between the methods. Differences between patterns could be attributable to the underpinning statistical technique of each method. Therefore, acknowledging the differences between the methods and ensuring thorough documentation of the pattern derivation analyses is essential to inform comparison of patterns derived through a range of approaches across studies.
Highlights
This study aimed to compare behavioural patterns derived across diet, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep domains, using principal component analysis (PCA), latent profile analysis (LPA) and cluster analysis (CA) in a single dataset
Diet and time spent in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep are key behaviours implicated in disease development [1,2,3]
The most common unsupervised learning methods used in the nutrition and physical activity field include principal component analysis (PCA), cluster analysis (CA), and latent class/profile analysis (LCA/LPA, for categorical and continuous input data respectively) [10]
Summary
Diet and time spent in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep are key behaviours implicated in disease development [1,2,3]. The most common unsupervised learning methods used in the nutrition and physical activity field include principal component analysis (PCA), cluster analysis (CA), and latent class/profile analysis (LCA/LPA, for categorical and continuous input data respectively) [10]. Each individual will have a ‘score’ for each of these principal components Both CA and LCA/LPA focus on individuals, finding groups of individuals with similar characteristics [14] and assigning them into mutually exclusive clusters [13]. Behavioural patterns are typically derived using unsupervised multivariate methods such as principal component analysis (PCA), latent profile analysis (LPA) and cluster analysis (CA). This study aimed to compare behavioural patterns derived across diet, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep domains, using PCA, LPA and CA in a single dataset
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have