Which activity monitor to use? Validity, reproducibility and user friendliness of three activity monitors

BMC Public Health

Hans HCM Savelberg¹  Nicolaas C Schaper²  Guy Plasqui³  Kenneth Meijer¹  Marike RC Hendriks¹  Brenda AJ Berendsen¹ 

[1] Department of Human Movement Science, NUTRIM, School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, Maastricht, 6200 MD, the Netherlands;Department of Internal Medicine, CAPHRI, School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, the Netherlands;Department of Human Biology, NUTRIM, School for Nutrition, Toxicology and Metabolism, Maastricht University Medical Centre, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands

关键词: Physical activity measurement;    Reliability;    Feasibility;    Sedentary;    Posture classification;    Wearing comfort;    Accelerometer;   

Others  :  1128944
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-749

 received in 2014-02-04, accepted in 2014-07-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Health is associated with amount of daily physical activity. Recently, the identification of sedentary time as an independent factor, has gained interest. A valid and easy to use activity monitor is needed to objectively investigate the relationship between physical activity, sedentary time and health. We compared validity and reproducibility of physical activity measurement and posture identification of three activity monitors, as well as user friendliness.

Methods

Healthy volunteers wore three activity monitors simultaneously: ActivPAL3, ActiGraphGT3X and CAM. Data were acquired under both controlled (n = 5) and free-living conditions (n = 9). The controlled laboratory measurement, that included standardized walking intensity and posture allocation, was performed twice. User friendliness was evaluated with a questionnaire. Posture classification was compared with direct observation (controlled measurement) and with diaries (free living). Accelerometer intensity accuracy was tested by correlations with walking speed. User friendliness was compared between activity monitors.

Results

Reproducibility was at least substantial in all monitors. The difference between the two CAM measurements increased with walking intensity. Amount of correct posture classification by ActivPAL3 was 100.0% (kappa 0.98), 33.9% by ActiGraphGT3X (kappa 0.29) and 100.0% by CAM (kappa 0.99). Correlations between accelerometer intensity and walking speed were 0.98 for ActivPAL3, 1.00 for ActiGraphGT3X and 0.98 for CAM. ICCs between activity monitors and diary were 0.98 in ActivPAL3, 0.59 and 0.96 in ActiGraphGT3X and 0.98 in CAM. ActivPAL3 and ActiGraphGT3X had higher user friendliness scores than the CAM.

Conclusions

The ActivPAL3 is valid, reproducible and user friendly. The posture classification by the ActiGraphGT3X is not valid, but reflection of walking intensity and user friendliness are good. The CAM is valid; however, reproducibility at higher walking intensity and user friendliness might cause problems. Further validity studies in free living are recommended.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Berendsen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]World Health Organization: Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2009:10-11.
• [2]van der Ploeg HP, Chey T, Korda RJ, Banks E, Bauman A: Sitting time and all-cause mortality risk in 222 497 Australian adults. Arch Intern Med 2012, 172:494-500.
• [3]Duvivier BM, Schaper NC, Bremers MA, van Crombrugge G, Menheere PP, Kars M, Savelberg HH: Minimal intensity physical activity (standing and walking) of longer duration improves insulin action and plasma lipids more than shorter periods of moderate to vigorous exercise (cycling) in sedentary subjects when energy expenditure is comparable. PLoS One 2013, 8:e55542.
• [4]Ekelund U, Franks PW, Sharp S, Brage S, Wareham NJ: Increase in physical activity energy expenditure is associated with reduced metabolic risk independent of change in fatness and fitness. Diabetes Care 2007, 30:2101-2106.
• [5]Bankoski A, Harris TB, McClain JJ, Brychta RJ, Caserotti P, Chen KY, Berrigan D, Troiano RP, Koster A: Sedentary activity associated with metabolic syndrome independent of physical activity. Diabetes Care 2011, 34:497-503.
• [6]Hamilton MT, Hamilton DG, Zderic TW: Role of low energy expenditure and sitting in obesity, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Diabetes 2007, 56:2655-2667.
• [7]Healy GN, Clark BK, Winkler EA, Gardiner PA, Brown WJ, Matthews CE: Measurement of adults’ sedentary time in population-based studies. Am J Prev Med 2011, 41:216-227.
• [8]Thorp AA, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW: Sedentary behaviors and subsequent health outcomes in adults a systematic review of longitudinal studies, 1996–2011. Am J Prev Med 2011, 41:207-215.
• [9]Clark BK, Sugiyama T, Healy GN, Salmon J, Dunstan DW, Owen N: Validity and reliability of measures of television viewing time and other non-occupational sedentary behaviour of adults: a review. Obes Rev 2009, 10:7-16.
• [10]Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M: A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008, 5:56.
• [11]Foerster F, Fahrenberg J: Motion pattern and posture: correctly assessed by calibrated accelerometers. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2000, 32:450-457.
• [12]Oliver M, Schofield GM, Badland HM, Shepherd J: Utility of accelerometer thresholds for classifying sitting in office workers. Prev Med 2010, 51:357-360.
• [13]Carr LJ, Mahar MT: Accuracy of intensity and inclinometer output of three activity monitors for identification of sedentary behavior and light-intensity activity. J Obes 2012 2012, 2012:460271.
• [14]Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Lyden K, Staudenmayer J, Freedson PS: Validation of wearable monitors for assessing sedentary behavior. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:1561-1567.
• [15]Kozey-Keadle S, Libertine A, Staudenmayer J, Freedson P: The Feasibility of Reducing and Measuring Sedentary Time among Overweight, Non-Exercising Office Workers. J Obes 2012, 2012:282303.
• [16]Freedson P, Bowles HR, Troiano R, Haskell W: Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44:S1-4.
• [17]Annegarn J, Spruit MA, Uszko-Lencer NH, Vanbelle S, Savelberg HH, Schols AM, Wouters EF, Meijer K: Objective physical activity assessment in patients with chronic organ failure: a validation study of a new single-unit activity monitor. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 92:1852-1857. e1851
• [18]McMahon GC, Brychta RJ, Chen KY: Validation of the Actigraph (GT3X) inclinometer function. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010, 42:489.
• [19]Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe WW, Granat MH: The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. Br J Sports Med 2006, 40:992-997.
• [20]Hart TL, Ainsworth BE, Tudor-Locke C: Objective and subjective measures of sedentary behavior and physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43:449-456.
• [21]Godfrey A, Culhane KM, Lyons GM: Comparison of the performance of the activPAL Professional physical activity logger to a discrete accelerometer-based activity monitor. Med Eng Phys 2007, 29:930-934.
• [22]Corder K, Brage S, Ekelund U: Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2007, 10:597-603.
• [23]Mathie MJ, Coster AC, Lovell NH, Celler BG: Accelerometry: providing an integrated, practical method for long-term, ambulatory monitoring of human movement. Physiol Meas 2004, 25:R1-20.
• [24]Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR: Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37:S531-543.
• [25]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [26]Maddocks M, Petrou A, Skipper L, Wilcock A: Validity of three accelerometers during treadmill walking and motor vehicle travel. Br J Sports Med 2010, 44:606-608.
• [27]Dahlgren G, Carlsson D, Moorhead A, Hager-Ross C, McDonough SM: Test-retest reliability of step counts with the ActivPAL device in common daily activities. Gait Posture 2010, 32:386-390.
• [28]Bouten CV, Sauren AA, Verduin M, Janssen JD: Effects of placement and orientation of body-fixed accelerometers on the assessment of energy expenditure during walking. Med Biol Eng Comput 1997, 35:50-56.
• [29]Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M: Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40:181-188.
• [30]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, 46:436-442.
• [31]Choi L, Ward SC, Schnelle JF, Buchowski MS: Assessment of wear/nonwear time classification algorithms for triaxial accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44:2009-2016.
• [32]Machado-Rodrigues AM, Figueiredo AJ, Mota J, Cumming SP, Eisenmann JC, Malina RM, Coelho ESMJ: Concurrent validation of estimated activity energy expenditure using a 3-day diary and accelerometry in adolescents. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2012, 22:259-264.