Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

Volumn 44, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2012, Pages

  Welk, Gregory J ^a   McClain, James ^b   Ainsworth, Barbara E ^c  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

accelerometers; activity monitors; assessment; physical activity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MONITORING; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PHYSIOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; STANDARD;

HUMANS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; MOTOR ACTIVITY; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 83455186215     PISSN: 01959131     EISSN: 15300315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399d8f     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abel MG, Hannon JC, Sell K, Lillie T, Conlin G, Anderson D. Validation of the Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for walking and running in adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33(6):1155-64.
2. Abraham TL, McClain JJ, Getz RS, Tudor-Locke C. Comparison of low cost objective physical activity assessment instrument versus the ActiGraph. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(5 suppl):S63.
3. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Leon AS, et al. Compendium of physical activities: classification of energy costs of human physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25(1):71-80. (Pubitemid 23027685)
4. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9 suppl):S498-516.
5. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135-60. (Pubitemid 29425900)
6. Brage S, Brage N, Wedderkopp N, Froberg K. Reliability and validity of the Computer Science and Applications accelerometer in a mechanical setting. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2003;7(2): 101-19. (Pubitemid 36622791)
7. Catellier DJ, Muller KE. Sample size and power considerations in physical activity research. In: Welk GJ, editor. Physical Activity Assessments for Health-Related Research. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2002, p. 93-103.
8. Chen KY, Bassett DR Jr. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37(11 suppl):S490-500. (Pubitemid 41691812)
9. 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 Sports Sci. 2007;25(14):1607-11. (Pubitemid 47542915)
10. Esliger DW, Tremblay MS. Technical reliability assessment of three accelerometer models in a mechanical setup. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(12):2173-81. (Pubitemid 44884829)
11. 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(12): 992-7. (Pubitemid 44902286)
12. Herrmann S, Hart T, Lee C, Ainsworth B. Evaluation of the Active Key accelerometer. Br J Sports Med. 2009;10:1136-40.
13. Jakicic JM, Marcus M, Gallagher KI, et al. Evaluation of the SenseWear Pro Armband to assess energy expenditure during exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(5):897-904. (Pubitemid 38596398)
14. Krasnoff JB, Kohn MA, Choy FK, Doyle J, Johansen K, Painter PL. Interunit and intraunit reliability of the RT3 triaxial accelerometer. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5(4):527-38.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. (Pubitemid 8054849)
16. Levine JA. Measurement of energy expenditure. Public Health Nutr. 2005;8(7A):1123-32. (Pubitemid 43266302)
17. Macfarlane DJ, Lee CC, Ho EY, Chan KL, Chan D. Convergent validity of six methods to assess physical activity in daily life. J Appl Physiol. 2006;101(5):1328-34.
18. McClain JJ, Craig CL, Sisson SB, Tudor-Locke C. Comparison of Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph accelerometers under free-living conditions. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2007;32(4):753-61.
19. McClain JJ, Hart TL, Getz RS, Tudor-Locke C. Convergent validity of 3 low cost motion sensors with the Actigraph accelerometer. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(5):662-70.
20. McClain JJ, Sisson SB, Tudor-Locke C. ActiGraph accelerometer interinstrument reliability during free-living in adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(9):1509-14. (Pubitemid 47360973)
21. McClain JJ, Sisson SB, Washington TL, Craig CL, Tudor-Locke C. Comparison of Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph accelerometers in 10-yr-old children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(4): 630-8. (Pubitemid 46555790)
22. Metcalf BS, Curnow JS, Evans C, Voss LD, Wilkin TJ. Technical reliability of the CSA activity monitor: the EarlyBird Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34(9):1533-7. (Pubitemid 35006830)
23. Paul DR, Kramer M, Moshfegh AJ, Baer DJ, Rumpler WV. Comparison of two different physical activity monitors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:726.
24. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
25. Powell SM, Jones DI, Rowlands AV. Technical variability of the RT3 accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(10):1773-8. (Pubitemid 37221912)
26. Powell SM, Rowlands AV. Intermonitor variability of the RT3 accelerometer during typical physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(2):324-30. (Pubitemid 38177064)
27. Reneman M, Helmus M. Interinstrument reliability of the RT3 accelerometer. Int J Rehabil Res. 2010;33(2):178-9.
28. 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.
29. Troiano RP. A timely meeting: objective measurement of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 suppl):S487-9. (Pubitemid 41691811)
30. Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11 suppl):S531-43. (Pubitemid 41691816)
31. Van Hees VT, Slootmaker SM, De Groot G, Van Mechelen W, Van Lummel RC. Reproducibility of a triaxial seismic accelerometer (DynaPort). Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(4):810-7.
32. Welk GJ, Blair SN, Wood K, Jones S, Thompson RW. A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32(9 suppl):S489-97.
33. Welk GJ, McClain JJ, Eisenmann JC, Wickel EE. Field validation of the MTI ActiGraph and BodyMedia armband monitor using the IDEEA monitor. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15(4): 918-28. (Pubitemid 46740967)
34. Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Morrow JR Jr. Reliability of accelerometrybased activity monitors: a generalizability study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(9):1637-45. (Pubitemid 39202636)
35. Zhang K, Pi-Sunyer FX, Boozer CN. Improving energy expenditure estimation for physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36(5):883-9. (Pubitemid 38596396)