Performance of the ActiGraph accelerometer using a national population-based sample of youth and adults

BMC Research Notes

Fang Wen¹  Kelly R Evenson¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, 137 East Franklin Street, Suite 306, Chapel Hill 27514, North Carolina, USA

关键词: Sedentary behavior;    Sample weights;    Physical activity;    Non-wear;    Missingness;    Intensity;    ActiGraph;   

Others  :  1090752
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-014-0970-2

 received in 2014-11-04, accepted in 2014-12-30,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Accelerometer output may be semi-continuous or continuous in nature, which has implications on discerning non-wear and defining physical activity intensity levels. This study described field-based accelerometer performance from a surveillance sample of youth and adults.

Methods

Using 2003–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, 4,028 youth ages 6 to 17 years and 7,931 adults age > =18 years wore an ActiGraph AM7164 accelerometer for one week, providing at least 3 days of wear for > =8 hours/day. Accelerometer performance was assessed by exploring the number of different values of accelerometer counts/minute for each participant.

Results

On average, youth participants had 1381 different counts/minute over 7 days (median 1360, interquartile range 1127–1623) and adult participants had 1101 different counts/minute over 7 days (median 1085, interquartile range 874–1313). For both youth and adults, when restricting to counts/minute between 0 to 4999, every possible value (in counts/minute) occurred at least once.

Conclusion

The field-based data confirmed that the accelerometer used in this study allowed for continuous counts/minute through which all but the most vigorous activities would usually occur.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Evenson and Wen; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]John D, Freedson P: ActiGraph and Actical physical activity monitors: a peek under the hood. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44(1 Suppl 1):S86-9.
• [2]Evenson K, Sotres-Alvarez D, Deng Y, Marshall S, Isasi C, Esliger D, Davis S. Accelerometer adherence and performance in a population-based cohort study of US Hispanic adults. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2014. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000478.
• [3]Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews CE, Buchowski MS: Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43(2):357-64.
• [4]Masse L, Fuemmeler B, Anderson C, Matthews C, Trost S, Catellier D, et al.: Accelerometer data reduction: A comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37(11 supplement):S544-54.
• [5]Troiano R, Berrigan D, Dodd K, Masse L, Tilert T, McDowell M: Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40(1):181-8.
• [6]Evenson K, Catellier D, Gill K, Ondrak K, McMurray R: Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sport Sci 2008, 26(14):1557-65.
• [7]Winkler EA, Gardiner PA, Clark BK, Matthews CE, Owen N, Healy GN: Identifying sedentary time using automated estimates of accelerometer wear time. Br J Sports Med 2012, 46(6):436-42.
• [8]Evenson K, Terry J Jr: Assessment of differing definitions of accelerometer nonwear time. Res Q Exerc Sport 2009, 80(2):355-62.
• [9]Sirard JR, Forsyth A, Oakes JM, Schmitz KH: Accelerometer test-retest reliability by data processing algorithms: results from the Twin Cities Walking Study. J Phys Act Health 2011, 8(5):668-74.
• [10]Choi L, Ward SC, Schnelle JF, Buchowski MS: Assessment of wear/nonwear time classification algorithms for triaxial accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44(10):2009-16.
• [11]Tanha T, Tornberg A, Dencker M, Wollmer P: Accelerometer measured daily physical activity and sedentary pursuits–comparison between two models of the Actigraph and the importance of data reduction. BMC Res Notes 2013, 6(1):439. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Peeters G, van Gellecum Y, Ryde G, Farias NA, Brown WJ: Is the pain of activity log-books worth the gain in precision when distinguishing wear and non-wear time for tri-axial accelerometers? J Sci Med Sport 2013, 16(6):515-9.
• [13]Mailey EL, Gothe NP, Wojcicki TR, Szabo AN, Olson EA, Mullen SP, et al.: Influence of allowable interruption period on estimates of accelerometer wear time and sedentary time in older adults. J Aging Phys Act 2014, 22(2):255-60.
• [14]Hutto B, Howard VJ, Blair SN, Colabianchi N, Vena JE, Rhodes D, et al.: Identifying accelerometer nonwear and wear time in older adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10(1):120. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Cain KL, Conway TL, Adams MA, Husak LE, Sallis JF: Comparison of older and newer generations of ActiGraph accelerometers with the normal filter and the low frequency extension. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10:51. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Romanzini M, Petroski EL, Ohara D, Dourado AC, Reichert FF: Calibration of ActiGraph GT3X, Actical and RT3 accelerometers in adolescents. Euro J Sport Sci 2014, 14(1):91-9.
• [17]Straker L, Campbell A: Translation equations to compare ActiGraph GT3X and Actical accelerometers activity counts. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12(1):54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Corder K, Brage S, Ramachandran A, Snehalatha C, Wareham N, Ekelund U: Comparison of two Actigraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents. J Sport Sci 2007, 25(14):1607-11.
• [19]Rothney MP, Apker GA, Song Y, Chen KY: Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. J Appl Physiol 2008, 105(4):1091-7.
• [20]John D, Tyo B, Bassett DR: Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010, 42(2):368-74.
• [21]Kozey SL, Staudenmayer JW, Troiano RP, Freedson PS: Comparison of the ActiGraph 7164 and the ActiGraph GT1M during self-paced locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010, 42(5):971-6.
• [22]Ried-Larsen M, Brond JC, Brage S, Hansen BH, Grydeland M, Andersen LB, et al.: Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the Actigraph activity monitor. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:113. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Tanha T, Tornberg AB, Wollmer P, Dencker M: Head-to-head comparison between Actigraph 7164 and GT1M accelerometers in adolescents. Clin Physiol Functional Imag 2013, 33(2):162-5.