Search

Physical activity (PA) estimates from the Fitbit Flex 2 were compared to those from the ActiGraph GT9X Link in 123 elementary school children. Steps and intensity-specific estimates of PA and 3-month PA change were calculated using two different ActiGraph cut-points (Evenson and Romanzini). Fitbit estimates were 35% higher for steps compared to the ActiGraph. Fitbit and ActiGraph intensity-specific estimates were closest for sedentary and light PA, while estimates of moderate and vigorous PA varied substantially depending upon the ActiGraph cut-points used. Spearman correlations between device estimates were higher for steps (r[subscript s] = 0.70) than for moderate (r[subscript s] = 0.54 to 0.55) or vigorous (r[subscript s] = 0.29 to 0.48) PA. There was low concordance between devices in assessing PA changes over time. Agreement between Fitbit Flex 2 and ActiGraph estimates may depend upon the cut-points used to classify PA intensity. However, there is fair to good agreement between devices in ranking children's steps and MVPA.

Purpose: To assess the interdevice reliability and validity of the repetition-counting feature of the Push Band 2.0. Methods: Thirty college-aged participants (aged 18–24 years) simultaneously wore two Push Band 2.0 devices and performed 10 common resistance training exercises at four different tempos over the course of two testing sessions. Twelve repetitions were completed with visual confirmation for each set of exercises and compared with repetition estimates from the Push Band 2.0. Interdevice reliability was quantified using single measures intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals while validity was assessed via mean absolute percent error and mean percent error. Results: Interdevice reliability was found to be good to very good regardless of exercise type or tempo, as all intraclass correlation coefficients were >.770. Validity of the repetition-counting feature of the device was dependent on both exercise type and tempo, as exercises that did not involve rotation of the device throughout the movement demonstrated greater mean absolute percent error (31.0% average of all four tempos) and mean percent error (−29.9% average of all four tempos) than those that required such rotation (average mean absolute percent error of 3.5% and mean percent error of −1.6% across all four tempos). Conclusions: This study supports the reliability of the repetition-counting feature of the Push Band 2.0. However, device accuracy appears to be dependent on the type of movement and the speed at which the movement is performed, with greater accuracy observed during faster exercise tempos and exercises involving rotation of the device during movement execution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure 24-hr movement behaviors but are sometimes removed intermittently (e.g., for sleep or bathing), resulting in missing data. This study compared physical behaviors between times a hip-placed accelerometer was worn versus not worn in a college student sample. Participants (n = 115) wore a hip-placed ActiGraph during waking times and a thigh-placed activPAL continuously for at least 7 days (mean ± SD 7.5 ± 1.1 days). Thirteen nonwear algorithms determined ActiGraph nonwear; days included in the analysis had to have at least 1 min where the ActiGraph classified nonwear while participant was classified as awake by the activPAL. activPAL data for steps, time in sedentary behaviors (SB), light-intensity physical activity (LPA), and moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) from ActiGraph wear times were then compared with activPAL data from ActiGraph nonwear times. Participants took more steps (10.2–11.8 steps/min) and had higher proportions of MVPA (5.0%–5.9%) during ActiGraph wear time than nonwear time (3.1–8.0 steps/min, 0.8%–1.3% in MVPA). Effects were variable for SB (62.6%–66.9% of wear, 45.5%–76.2% of nonwear) and LPA (28.2%–31.5% of wear, 23.0%–53.2% of nonwear) depending on nonwear algorithm. Rescaling to a 12-hr day reduced SB and LPA error but increased MVPA error. Requiring minimum wear time (e.g., 600 min/day) reduced error but resulted in 10%–22% of days removed as invalid. In conclusion, missing data had minimal effect on MVPA but resulted in underestimation of SB and LPA. Strategies like scaling SB and LPA, but not MVPA, may improve physical behavior estimates from incomplete accelerometer data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to summarize both practical and methodological issues in using pedometers to assess physical activity in a large epidemiologic study. As part of a population-based survey of cardiovascular disease risk factors, physical activity was assessed using pedometers and activity diaries in 775 men and women ages 25-64 years who were residents of Burnie, Tasmania, 1998-99. Common data problems were classified by type. The frequency of each problem and the methods used to identify it are reported along with strategies to correct or prevent each problem type. Pedometer data from 15 (1.9%) participants could not be used due to errors in completing the pedometer protocol. Among 760 participants with usable data, the median number of steps was 9,729 for men and 10,388 for women. Pedometer steps per day were modestly correlated (r = 0.20, p less than 0.0001) with the duration of pedometer wear, which ranged from 4.50 to 21.75 hr. Adjustment for wear time, however, did not alter observed correlations between pedometer steps and cardiovascular risk factors. The authors conclude that pedometers can be used in large population studies with a relatively low frequency of data errors. However, guidelines for consistent data collection and interpretation are needed. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.)