The validation of Fibit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity

BMC Research Notes

Ruth F Hunter¹  Leonnie Heron²  Cairmeal McBride²  Mark A Tully¹ 

[1] UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (Northern Ireland), Belfast, UK;Centre for Public Health, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queens’ University Belfast, Belfast, UK

关键词: Validation;    Accelerometer;    Pedometer;    Physical activity;   

Others  :  1090945
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-7-952

 received in 2014-06-19, accepted in 2014-11-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The new generation of activity monitors allow users to upload their data to the internet and review progress. The aim of this study is to validate the Fitbit Zip as a measure of free-living physical activity.

Findings

Participants wore a Fitbit Zip, ActiGraph GT3X accelerometer and a Yamax CW700 pedometer for seven days. Participants were asked their opinion on the utility of the Fitbit Zip. Validity was assessed by comparing the output using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients, Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Bland-Altman plots. 59.5% (25/47) of the cohort were female. There was a high correlation in steps/day between the Fitbit Zip and the two reference devices (r = 0.91, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference between the Fitbit and Yamax steps/day was observed (Median (IQR) 7477 (3597) vs 6774 (3851); p = 0.11). The Fitbit measured significantly more steps/day than the Actigraph (7477 (3597) vs 6774 (3851); p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots revealed no systematic differences between the devices.

Conclusions

Given the high level of correlation and no apparent systematic biases in the Bland Altman plots, the use of Fitbit Zip as a measure of physical activity. However the Fitbit Zip recorded a significantly higher number of steps per day than the Actigraph.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tully et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, Andersen LB, Owen N, Goenka S, Montes F, Brownson RC, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group: Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet 2012, 380(9838):272-281.
• [2]Kolt GS, Rosenkranz RR, Savage TN, Maeder AJ, Vandelanotte C, Duncan MJ, Caperchione CM, Tague R, Hooker C, Mummery WK: WALK 2.0 - using Web 2.0 applications to promote health-related physical activity: a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:436. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Davies CA, Spence JC, Vandelanotte C, Caperchione CM, Mummery WK: Meta-analysis of internet-delivered interventions to increase physical activity levels. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:52. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Sasaki JE, Hickey A, Mavilia M, Tedesco J, John D, Kozey Keadle S, Freedson PS: Validation of the Fitbit Wireless Activity Tracker® for Prediction of Energy Expenditure. J Phys Act Health 2014. [epub ahead of print]
• [5]Dannecker KL, Sazonova NA, Melanson EL, Sazonov ES, Browning RC: A comparison of energy expenditure estimation of several physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013, 45(11):2105-2112.
• [6]Takacs J, Pollock CL, Guenther JR, Bahar M, Napier C, Hunt MA: Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking. J Sci Med Sport 2014, 17(5):496-500.
• [7]Adam Noah J, Spierer DK, Gu J, Bronner S: Comparison of steps and energy expenditure assessment in adults of Fitbit Tracker and Ultra to the Actical and indirect calorimetry. J Med Eng Technol 2013, 37(7):456-462.
• [8]Dowd KP, Harrington DM, Donnelly AE: Criterion and concurrent validity of the activPALTM professional physical activity monitor in adolescent females. PLoS One 2012, 7(10):e47633.
• [9]De Cocker K, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I: Validity of the inexpensive Stepping Meter in counting steps in free living conditions: a pilot study. Br J Sports Med 2006, 40(8):714-716.
• [10]Hale LA, Pal J, Becker I: Measuring free-living physical activity in adults with and without neurologic dysfunction with a triaxial accelerometer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008, 89(9):1765-1771.
• [11]Bassett DR, Mahar MT, Rowe DA, Morrow JR: Walking and measurement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008, 40(7 Suppl):S529-S536.
• [12]Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J: Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998, 30(5):777-781.
• [13]Welk GJ, McClain J, Ainsworth BE: Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012, 44(1 Suppl 1):S39-S49.
• [14]Bland JM, Altman DG: Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8(2):135-160.
• [15]Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Thompson RW, Matthews CE: Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of free-living physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002, 34(12):2045-2051.
• [16]Dondzila CJ, Swartz AM, Miller NE, Lenz EK, Strath SJ: Accuracy of uploadable pedometers in laboratory, overground, and free-living conditions in young and older adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:143. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Fitbit Inc: How do I wear my Zip? [http://help.fitbit.com/articles/en_US/Help_article/How-do-I-wear-my-Zip/ webcite]. Accessed 30 Apr 2014