Accelerometer data reduction in adolescents: effects on sample retention and bias

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Jens Troelsen¹  Jan Christian Brønd²  Eleanor Boyle³  Lars Breum Christiansen¹  Scott Duncan⁴  Melody Oliver⁴  Peter Lund Kristensen²  Mette Toftager¹ 

[1] Centre for Intervention Research in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark;Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada;Human Potential Centre, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

关键词: Bias;    Accelerometer;    Overweight;    Adolescents;    Measurements;    Physical activity;   

Others  :  805782
DOI  :  10.1186/1479-5868-10-140

 received in 2013-04-13, accepted in 2013-12-17,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Accelerometry is increasingly being recognized as an accurate and reliable method to assess free-living physical activity (PA) in children and adolescents. However, accelerometer data reduction criteria remain inconsistent, and the consequences of excluding participants in for example intervention studies are not well described. In this study, we investigated how different data reduction criteria changed the composition of the adolescent population retained in accelerometer data analysis.

Methods

Accelerometer data (Actigraph GT3X), anthropometric measures and survey data were obtained from 1348 adolescents aged 11–14 years enrolled in the Danish SPACE for physical activity study. Accelerometer data were analysed using different settings for each of the three key data reduction criteria: (1) number of valid days; (2) daily wear time; and (3) non-wear time. The effects of the selected setting on sample retention and PA counts were investigated and compared. Ordinal logistic regression and multilevel mixed-effect linear regression models were used to analyse the impact of differing non-wear time definitions in different subgroups defined by body mass index, age, sex, and self-reported PA and sedentary levels.

Results

Increasing the minimum requirements for daily wear time and the number of valid days and applying shorter non-wear definitions, resulted in fewer adolescents retained in the dataset. Moreover, the different settings for non-wear time significantly influenced which participants would be retained in the accelerometer data analyses. Adolescents with a higher BMI (OR:0.93, CI:0.87-0.98, p=0.015) and older adolescents (OR:0.68, CI:0.49-0.95, p=0.025) were more likely to be excluded from analysis using 10 minutes of non-wear compared to longer non-wear time periods. Overweight and older adolescents accumulated more daily non-wear time if the non-wear time setting was short, and the relative difference between groups changed depending on the non-wear setting. Overweight and older adolescents did also accumulate more sedentary time, but this was not significant correlated to the non-wear setting used.

Conclusions

Even small differences in accelerometer data reduction criteria can have substantial impact on sample size and PA and sedentary outcomes. This study highlighted the risk of introducing bias with more overweight and older adolescents excluded from the analysis when using short non-wear time definitions.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Toftager et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rowlands AV: Accelerometer assessment of physical activity in children: An update. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2007, 19(3):252-266.
• [2]Reilly JJ, Penpraze V, Hislop J, Davies G, Grant S, Paton JY: Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data. Arch Dis Child 2008, 93(7):614-619.
• [3]De Vries SI, Van Hirtum HW, Bakker I, Hopman-Rock M, Hirasing RA, Van Mechelen W: Validity and reproducibility of motion sensors in youth: a systematic update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009, 41(4):818-827.
• [4]Colley R, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay MS: Quality control and data reduction procedures for accelerometry-derived measures of physical activity. Health Rep 2010, 21((1):63-69.
• [5]Masse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, Matthews CE, Trost SG, Catellier DJ, Treuth M: Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37(11 Suppl):S544-S554.
• [6]Cain KL, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Van Dyck D, Calhoon L: Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: a review of methods. J Phys Act Health 2013, 10(3):437-450.
• [7]Nilsson A, Ekelund U, Yngve A, Sjostrom M: Assessing physical activity among children with accelerometers using different time sampling intervals and placements. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2002, 14(1):87-96.
• [8]Corder K, Ekelund U, Steele RM, Wareham NJ, Brage S: Assessment of physical activity in youth. J Appl Physiol 2008, 105(3):977-987.
• [9]Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR: Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37(11 Suppl):S531-S543.
• [10]Kim Y, Beets MW, Welk GJ: Everything you wanted to know about selecting the “right” Actigraph accelerometer cut-points for youth, but … : a systematic review. J Sci Med Sport 2012, 15(4):311-321.
• [11]Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, Pfeiffer KA: Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011, 43(7):1360-1368.
• [12]Riddoch CJ, Andersen LB, Wedderkopp N, Harro M, Klasson-Heggebo L, Sardinha LB, Cooper AR, Ekelund U: Physical activity levels and patterns of 9-and 15-yr-old European children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004, 36(1):86-92.
• [13]Troiano RP: Large-scale applications of accelerometers: new frontiers and new questions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007, 39(9):1501.
• [14]Kwon S, Janz KF: Tracking of accelerometry-measured physical activity during childhood: ICAD pooled analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:68. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Van Coevering P, Harnack L, Schmitz K, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, Gao SJ: Feasibility of using accelerometers to measure physical activity in young adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005, 37(5):867-871.
• [16]Mattocks C, Ness A, Leary S, Tilling K, Blair SN, Shield J, Deere K, Saunders J, Kirkby J, Smith GD, et al.: Use of accelerometers in a large field-based study of children: protocols, design issues, and effects on precision. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5:S98-S111.
• [17]Trost SG, Pate RR, Freedson PS, Sallis JF, Taylor WC: Using objective physical activity measures with youth: how many days of monitoring are needed? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000, 32(2):426-431.
• [18]Jago R, Baranowski T, Baranowski JC, Thompson D, Cullen KW, Watson K, Liu Y: Fit for life Boy scout badge: outcome evaluation of a troop and internet intervention. Prev Med 2006, 42(3):181-187.
• [19]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(1):181-188.
• [20]Treuth MS, Baggett CD, Pratt CA, Going SB, Elder JP, Charneco EY, Webber LS: A longitudinal study of sedentary behavior and overweight in adolescent girls. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2009, 17(5):1003-1008.
• [21]Ekelund U, Sarnblad S, Brage S, Ryberg J, Wareham NJ, Aman J: Does physical activity equally predict gain in fat mass among obese and nonobese young adults? Int J Obes 2006, 31(1):65-71.
• [22]Oliver MBH, Schofield GM, Shepherd J: Identification of non-wear time and sedentary behavior using accelerometry. Res Q Exerc Sport 2011, 82(4):779-783.
• [23]Toftager M, Christiansen LB, Kristensen PL, Troelsen J: SPACE for physical activity - a multicomponent intervention study: study design and baseline findings from a cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:777. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Robusto KM, Trost SG: Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph™ activity monitors in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci 2012, 30(13):1429-1435.
• [25]Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG: Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 2008, 26(14):1557-1565.
• [26]Rasmussen M, Due P: Skolebørnsundersøgelsen 2010 [Health Behaviour in School-aged Children in Denmark]. Copenhagen: National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark; 2011.
• [27]Cole TJ, Bellizzi MC, Flegal KM, Dietz WH: Establishing a standard definition for child overweight and obesity worldwide: international survey. BMJ 2000, 320(7244):1240-1243.
• [28]Pedersen CB: The Danish civil registration system. Scand J Public Health 2011, 39(7 Suppl):22-25.
• [29]Baadsgaard M, Quitzau J: Danish registers on personal income and transfer payments. Scand J Public Health 2011, 39(7 Suppl):103-105.
• [30]Sherar L, Griew P, Esliger D, Cooper A, Ekelund U, Judge K, Riddoch C: International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD): design and methods. BMC Public Health 2011, 11(1):485. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Mitre N, Lanningham-Foster L, Foster R, Levine JA: Pedometer accuracy for children: can we recommend them for our obese population? Pediatrics 2009, 123(1):e127-e131.
• [32]Tyo BM, Bassett DR Jr, Coe DP, Feito Y, Thompson DL: Effect of BMI on pedometers in early adolescents under free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013, 45(3):569-573.
• [33]Ried-Larsen M, Brond J, Brage S, Hansen B, Grydeland M, Andersen L, Moller N: Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the actigraph activity monitor. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9(1):113. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Wanner M, Martin B, Meier F, Probst-Hensch N, Kriemler S: Effects of filter choice in GT3X accelerometer assessments of free-living activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013, 45(1):170-177.
• [35]De Meester F, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Ottevaere C, Cardon G: Measuring physical activity using accelerometry in 13-15-year-old adolescents: the importance of including non-wear activities. Public Health Nutr 2011, 14(12):2124-2133.
• [36]P. 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. article in press
• [37]King WC, Li J, Leisear K, Mitchell JE, Belle SH: Determining activity monitor wear time: an influential decision rule. J Phys Act Health 2011, 8(4):566-580.
• [38]Esliger DW, Copeland JL, Barnes JD, Tremblay MS: Standardizing and optimizing the Use of accelerometer data for free-living physical activity monitoring. J Phys Act Health 2005, 3:366-383.