Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph™ activity monitors in children and adolescents

Journal of Sports Sciences

Volumn 30, Issue 13, 2012, Pages 1429-1435

  Robusto, Kristi M ^a   Trost, Stewart G ^b  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

accelerometer; assessment; objective measurement; Physical activity; youth

Indexed keywords

ACTIMETRY; ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY;

ACTIGRAPHY; ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADOLESCENT; CHILD; EXERCISE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY;

EID: 84866155310     PISSN: 02640414     EISSN: 1466447X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2012.710761     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bland, J. M. and Altman, D. G. 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet, 327: 307-310.
2. Chen, K. Y. and Bassett, D. R. 2005. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: Current and future. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37: S490-S500.
3. Corder, K., Brage, S., Ramachandran, A., Snehalatha, C., Wareham, N. and Ekelund, U. 2007. Comparison of two ActiGraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25: 1607-1611.
4. Evenson, K. R., Catellier, D. J., Gill, K., Ondrak, K. S. and McMurray, R. G. 2008. Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26: 1557-1565.
5. John, D., Tyo, B. and Bassett, D. R. 2010. Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42: 368-374.
6. Kozey, S. L., Staudenmayer, J. W., Troiano, R. P. and Freedson, P. S. 2010. A comparison of the ActiGraph 7164 and the ActiGraph GT1M during self-paced locomotion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42: 971-976.
7. Landis, J. and Koch, G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159-174.
8. Rothney, M. P., Apker, G. A., Song, Y. and Chen, K. Y. 2008. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. Journal of Applied Physiology, 105: 1091-1097.
9. Sasaki, J. E., John, D. and Freedson, P. S. 2011. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14: 411-416.
10. Troiano, R. P. 2005. A timely meeting: Objective measurement of physical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37: S487-S489. suppl.
11. Troiano, R. P. 2007. Large-scale applications of accelerometers: New frontiers and new questions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39: 1501
12. Trost, S. G. 2007. Measurement of physical activity in children and adolescents. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 1: 299-314.
13. Trost, S. G., Loprinzi, P. D., Moore, R. M. and Pfeiffer, K. A. 2011. Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43: 1360-1368.
14. Trost, S. G., McIver, K. L. and Pate, R. R. 2005. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37: S531-S543. suppl.