Accelerometer-based measures in physical activity surveillance: Current practices and issues

British Journal of Sports Medicine

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 219-223

  Pedišić, Željko ^a,b   Bauman, Adrian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVICES; ECONOMICS; EXERCISE; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EXERCISE; HUMANS; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEDENTARY LIFESTYLE;

EID: 84921886459     PISSN: 03063674     EISSN: 14730480     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093407     Document Type: Review

References (171)

1. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet 2012;380:219-29.
2. World Health Organization. NCD Global Monitoring Framework. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2013.
3. World Health Organization. WHO STEPS surveillance manual: the WHO STEPwise approach to chronic disease risk factor surveillance/noncommunicable diseases and mental health. Geneva: WHO Press, 2005.
4. World Health Organization. Review of physical activity surveillance data sources in European Union member states. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2010.
5. National Obesity Observatory (NOO). Physical activity surveillance in England: what is measured and where are the gaps? Oxford: NOO, 2009.
6. Scottish Health Survey Team. The Scottish Health Survey 2011. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government, 2012.
7. Sadler K, Doyle M, Hussey D, et al. Welsh Health Survey 2011. London: NatCen Social Research, 2012.
8. Central Survey Unit. Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey 2005/06. Belfast: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, 2007.
9. Department of Health SSPS. Health Survey Northern Ireland: first results from the 2010/11 survey. Belfast: Public Health Information & Research Branch Information & Analysis Directorate, 2011.
10. NatCen Social Research. National Diet and Nutrition Survey headline results from years 1, 2 and 3 (combined) of the rolling programme (2008/2009-2010/11). London: Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency, 2011.
11. MacNiven R, Bauman A, Abouzeid M. A review of population-based prevalence studies of physical activity in adults in the Asia-Pacific region. BMC Public Health 2012;12:1-11.
12. Shephard RJ, Aoyagi Y. Measurement of human energy expenditure, with particular reference to field studies: an historical perspective. Eur J Appl Physiol 2012;112:2785-815.
13. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2013-2014. Hyattsville: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
14. Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, et al. Physical activity of Canadian adults: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep 2011;22:7-14.
15. Dishman RK, Washburn RA, Schoeller DA. Measurement of physical activity. Quest 2001;53:295-309.
16. Shephard RJ. Limits to the measurement of habitual physical activity by questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 2003;37:197-206.
17. Warren JM, Ekelund U, Besson H, et al. Assessment of physical activity-a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2010;17:127-39.
18. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71:1-14.
19. Baranowski T, Mâsse LC, Ragan B, et al. How many days was that? We're still not sure, but we're asking the question better! Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008;40:544-9.
20. Hart TL, Swartz AM, Cashin SE, et al. How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011;8:1-7.
21. Janz KF, Witt J, Mahoney LT. The stability of children's physical activity as measured by accelerometry and self-report. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27:1326-32.
22. Matthews CE, Ainsworth BE, Thompson RW, et al. Sources of variance in daily physical activity levels as measured by an accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:1376-81.
23. Trost SG, Pate RR, Freedson PS, et al. Using objective physical activity measures with youth: how many days of monitoring are needed? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:426-31.
24. Penpraze V, Reilly JJ, MacLean CM, et al. Monitoring of physical activity in young children: how much is enough? Pediatr Exerc Sci 2006;18:483-91.
25. Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, et al. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep 2011;22:15-23.
26. Hagströmer M, Oja P, Sjöström M. Physical activity and inactivity in an adult population assessed by accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:1502-8.
27. Hansen BH, Kolle E, Dyrstad SM, et al. Accelerometer-determined physical activity in adults and older people. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:266-72.
28. Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, et al. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008;40:181-8.
29. Roth MA, Mindell JS. Who provides accelerometry data? Correlates of adherence to wearing an accelerometry motion sensor: the 2008 health survey for England. J Phys Act Health 2013;10:70-8.
30. Loprinzi PD, Cardinal BJ, Crespo CJ, et al. Differences in demographic, behavioral, and biological variables between those with valid and invalid accelerometry data: implications for generalizability. J Phys Act Health 2013;10:79-84.
31. Loprinzi PD, Smit E, Cardinal BJ, et al. Valid and invalid accelerometry data mong children and adolescents: comparison across demographic, behavioral, and biological variables. Am J Health Promot 2014;28:155-8.
32. Bauman A, Bull F, Chey T, et al. The international prevalence study on physical activity: results from 20 countries. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009;6:1-11.
33. Carlson S, Densmore D, Fulton J, et al. Differences in physical activity prevalence and trends from 3 U.S. surveillance systems: NHIS, NHANES, and BRFSS. J Phys Act Health 2009;6:S18-27.
34. Brage S, Brage N, Wedderkopp N, et al. Reliability and validity of the computer science and applications accelerometer in a mechanical setting. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2003;7:101-19.
35. Esliger DW, Tremblay MS. Technical reliability assessment of three accelerometer models in a mechanical setup. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006;38:2173-81.
36. Horner FE, Rayson MP, Bilzon JLJ. Reliability and validity of the 3DNX accelerometer during mechanical and human treadmill exercise testing. Int J Obes 2011;35:S88-97.
37. Krasnoff JB, Kohn MA, Choy FKK, et al. Interunit and intraunit reliability of the RT3 triaxial accelerometer. J Phys Act Health 2008;5:527-38.
38. Routen A, Upton D, Edwards M, et al. Intra-and inter-instrument reliability of the actiwatch 4 accelerometer in a mechanical laboratory setting. J Hum Kinet 2012;31:17-24.
39. Silva P, Mota J, Esliger D, et al. Technical reliability assessment of the Actigraph GT1M accelerometer. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2010;14:79-91.
40. Metcalf BS, Curnow JSH, Evans C, et al. Technical reliability of the CSA activity monitor: the EarlyBird Study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002;34:1533-7.
41. Powell SM, Jones DI, Rowlands AV. Technical variability of the RT3 accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1773-8.
42. Nichols JF, Morgan CG, Sarkin JA, et al. Validity, reliability, and calibration of the Tritrac accelerometer as a measure of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31:908-12.
43. Kochersberger G, McConnell E, Kuchibhatla MN, et al. The reliability, validity, and stability of a measure of physical activity in the elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:793-5.
44. Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Morrow, JR Jr. Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36:1637-45.
45. Reneman M, Helmus M. Interinstrument reliability of the RT3 accelerometer. Int J Rehabil Res 2010;33:178-9.
46. Welk GJ, Blair SN, Wood K, et al. A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:S489-97.
47. Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, et al. Validity of the computer science and applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30:629-33.
48. Welk GJ, Almeida J, Morss G. Laboratory calibration and validation of the Biotrainer and Actitrac activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1057-64.
49. Vanhelst J, Baquet G, Gotrand F, et al. Comparative interinstrument reliability of uniaxial and triaxial accelerometers in free-living conditions. Percept Mot Skills 2012;114:584-94.
50. McClain JJ, Sisson SB, Tudor-Locke C. Actigraph accelerometer interinstrument reliability during free-living in adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:1509-14.
51. Sirard JR, Forsyth A, Oakes JM, et al. Accelerometer test-retest reliability by data processing algorithms: results from the Twin cities walking study. J Phys Act Health 2011;8:668-74.
52. Helmerhorst HJF, Brage S, Warren J, et al. A systematic review of reliability and objective criterion-related validity of physical activity questionnaires. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:1-55.
53. Plasqui G, Bonomi AG, Westerterp KR. Daily physical activity assessment with accelerometers: new insights and validation studies. Obes Rev 2013;14:451-62.
54. Van Remoortel H, Giavedoni S, Raste Y, et al. Validity of activity monitors in health and chronic disease: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:1-23.
55. Aguilar-Farías N, Brown WJ, Peeters GMEE. ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points for identifying sedentary behaviour in older adults in free-living environments. J Sci Med Sport 2014;17:293-9.
56. Healy GN, Clark BK, Winkler EAH, et al. Measurement of adults' sedentary time in population-based studies. Am J Prev Med 2011;41:216-27.
57. Martin A, McNeill M, Penpraze V, et al. Objective measurement of habitual sedentary behavior in pre-school children: comparison of activPAL with Actigraph monitors. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2011;23:468-76.
58. Oliver M, Schofield GM, Badland HM, et al. Utility of accelerometer thresholds for classifying sitting in office workers. Prev Med 2010;51:357-60.
59. Van Cauwenberghe E, Wooller L, Mackay L, et al. Comparison of Actical and activPAL measures of sedentary behaviour in preschool children. J Sci Med Sport 2012;15:526-31.
60. Matthews CE, Keadle SK, Sampson J, et al. Validation of a previous-day recall measure of active and sedentary behaviors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:1629-38.
61. Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, Van Poppel MNM, et al. Physical activity questionnaires for youth: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med 2010;40:539-63.
62. Van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, et al. Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med 2010;40:565-600.
63. Forsén L, Loland NW, Vuillemin A, et al. Self-administered physical activity questionnaires for the elderly: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med 2010;40:601-23.
64. Neilson HK, Robson PJ, Friedenreich CM, et al. Estimating activity energy expenditure: how valid are physical activity questionnaires? Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:279-91.
65. Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel ME, et al. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008;5:1-24.
66. Besson H, Brage S, Jakes RW, et al. Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;91:106-14.
67. Corder K, Van Sluijs EMF, Wright A, et al. Is it possible to assess free-living physical activity and energy expenditure in young people by self-report? Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:862-70.
68. Maddison R, Ni Mhurchu C, Jiang Y, et al. International physical activity questionnaire (IPAQ) and New Zealand physical activity questionnaire (NZPAQ): a doubly labelled water validation. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2007;4:1-9.
69. Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, et al. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:389-98.
70. Washburn RA, Jacobsen DJ, Sonko BJ, et al. The validity of the Stanford seven-day physical activity recall in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1374-80.
71. Goran MI, Poehlman ET. Total energy expenditure and energy requirements in healthy elderly persons. Metabolism 1992;41:744-53.
72. Livingstone MBE, Strain JJ, Prentice AM, et al. Potential contribution of leisure activity to the energy expenditure patterns of sedentary populations. Br J Nutr 1991;65:145-55.
73. Philippaerts RM, Westerterp KR, Lefevre J. Doubly labelled water validation of three physical activity questionnaires. Int J Sports Med 1999;20:284-9.
74. Bonnefoy M, Normand S, Pachiaudi C, et al. Simultaneous validation of ten physical activity questionnaires in older men: a doubly labeled water study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:28-35.
75. Slinde F, Arvidsson D, Sjöberg A, et al. Minnesota Leisure Time Activity Questionnaire and doubly labeled water in adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1923-8.
76. Conway JM, Irwin ML, Ainsworth BE. Estimating energy expenditure from the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity and Tecumseh Occupational Activity questionnaires - a doubly labeled water validation. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:392-9.
77. Staten LK, Taren DL, Howell WH, et al. Validation of the Arizona activity frequency questionnaire using doubly labeled water. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1959-67.
78. Mahabir S, Baer DJ, Giffen C, et al. Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from 4 physical activity questionnaires with doubly labeled water estimates in postmenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:230-6.
79. Conway JM, Seale JL, Jacobs DR Jr, et al. Comparison of energy expenditure estimates from doubly labeled water, a physical activity questionnaire, and physical activity records. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75:519-25.
80. Walsh MC, Hunter GR, Sirikul B, et al. Comparison of self-reported with objectively assessed energy expenditure in black and white women before and after weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:1013-19.
81. Leenders NYJM, Sherman WM, Nagaraja HN, et al. Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;33:1233-40.
82. Starling RD, Matthews DE, Ades PA, et al. Assessment of physical activity in older individuals: a doubly labeled water study. J Appl Physiol 1999;86:2090-6.
83. Barnard JA, Tapsell LC, Davies PSW, et al. Relationship of high energy expenditure and variation in dietary intake with reporting accuracy on 7 day food records and diet histories in a group of healthy adult volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 2002;56:358-67.
84. Lof M, Hannestad U, Forsum E. Comparison of commonly used procedures, including the doubly-labelled water technique, in the estimation of total energy expenditure of women with special reference to the significance of body fatness. Br J Nutr 2003;90:961-8.
85. Racette SB, Schoeller DA, Kushner RF. Comparison of heart rate and physical activity recall with doubly labeled water in obese women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27:126-33.
86. Seale JL, Klein G, Friedmann J, et al. Energy expenditure measured by doubly labeled water, activity recall, and diet records in the rural elderly. Nutrition 2002;18:568-73.
87. Herman Hansen B, Børtnes I, Hildebrand M, et al. Validity of the ActiGraph GT1M during walking and cycling. J Sports Sci 2014;32:510-16.
88. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012;380:247-57.
89. Buehler R, Pucher J. Walking and cycling in Western Europe and the United States: trends, policies, and lessons. TR News 2012:34-42.
90. Lyden K, Kozey SL, Staudenmeyer JW, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of commonly used accelerometer energy expenditure and MET prediction equations. Eur J Appl Physiol 2011;111:187-201.
91. Gemmill E, Bayles CM, McTigue K, et al. Factors associated with adherence to an accelerometer protocol in older adults. J Phys Act Health 2011;8:1152-9.
92. Van Coevering PA, Harnack L, Schmitz K, et al. Feasibility of using accelerometers to measure physical activity in young adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:867-71.
93. Spittaels H, Van Cauwenberghe E, Verbestel V, et al. Objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity time across the lifespan: a cross-sectional study in four age groups. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:1-12.
94. Catellier DJ, Hannan PJ, Murray DM, et al. Imputation of missing data when measuring physical activity by accelerometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:S555-62.
95. Lee PH. Data imputation for accelerometer-measured physical activity: the combined approach. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:965-71.
96. Schuna JM, Johnson WD, Tudor-Locke C. Adult self-reported and objectively monitored physical activity and sedentary behavior: NHANES 2005-2006. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:1-12.
97. Freedson PS, John D. Comment on "estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip and wrist". Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:962-3.
98. Perry MA, Hendrick PA, Hale L, et al. Utility of the RT3 triaxial accelerometer in free living: an investigation of adherence and data loss. Appl Ergon 2010;41:469-76.
99. Crocker PRE, Holowachuk DR, Kowalski KC. Feasibility of using the Tritrac motion sensor over a 7-day trial with older children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2001;13:70-81.
100. Audrey S, Bell S, Hughes R, et al. Adolescent perspectives on wearing accelerometers to measure physical activity in population-based trials. Eur J Public Health 2013;23:475-80.
101. Corder K, Ekelund U, Steele RM, et al. Assessment of physical activity in youth. J Appl Physiol 2008;105:977-87.
102. Esliger DW, Copeland JL, Barnes JD, et al. Standardizing and optimizing the use of accelerometer data for free-living physical activity monitoring. J Phys Act Health 2005;2:366-83.
103. Laporte RE, Montoye HJ, Caspersen CJ. Assessment of physical activity in epidemiologic research: problems and prospects. Public Health Rep 1985;100:131-46.
104. Behrens TK, Dinger MK. Motion sensor reactivity in physically active young adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 2007;78:1-8.
105. Dössegger A, Ruch N, Jimmy G, et al. Reactivity to accelerometer measurement of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46:1140-6.
106. Kowalski KC, Crocker PRE, Faulkner RA. Validation of the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 1997;9:174-86.
107. Kowalski KC, Crocker PRE, Kowalski NP. Convergent validity of the physical activity questionnaire for adolescents. Pediatr Exerc Sci 1997;9:342-52.
108. Pate RR, Freedson PS, Sallis JF, et al. Compliance with physical activity guidelines: prevalence in a population of children and youth. Ann Epidemiol 2002;12:303-8.
109. Janz KF. Physical activity in epidemiology: moving from questionnaire to objective measurement. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:191-2.
110. Katzmarzyk PT, Tremblay MS. Limitations of Canada's physical activity data: implications for monitoring trends. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007;32:S185-S94.
111. Reilly JJ, Penpraze V, Hislop J, et al. Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data. Arch Dis Child 2008;93:614-19.
112. Esliger DW, Tremblay MS. Physical activity and inactivity profi ling: the next generation. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007;32:S195-207.
113. Uijtdewilligen L, Singh AS, Twisk JWR, et al. Adolescent predictors of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour at age 42: the Amsterdam Growth and Health Longitudinal Study (AGAHLS). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011;8:1-5.
114. Guinhouya BC, Samouda H, De Beaufort C. Level of physical activity among children and adolescents in Europe: a review of physical activity assessed objectively by accelerometry. Public Health 2013;127:301-11.
115. Heil DP, Brage S, Rothney MP. Modeling physical activity outcomes from wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:50-60.
116. Freedson P, Bowles HR, Troiano R, et al. Assessment of physical activity using wearable monitors: recommendations for monitor calibration and use in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:S1-4.
117. Bassett DR Jr, Rowlands A, Trost SG. Calibration and validation of wearable monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:S32-8.
118. Welk GJ. Principles of design and analyses for the calibration of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:S501-11.
119. 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;15:311-21.
120. Romanzini M, Petroski EL, Reichert FF. Accelerometers thresholds to estimate physical activity intensity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2012;14:101-13.
121. Loprinzi PD, Lee H, Cardinal BJ, et al. The relationship of Actigraph accelerometer cut-points for estimating physical activity with selected health outcomes: results from NHANES 2003-06. Res Q Exerc Sport 2012;83:422-30.
122. Watson KB, Carlson SA, Carroll DD, et al. Comparison of accelerometer cut points to estimate physical activity in US adults. J Sports Sci 2014;32:660-9.
123. Crouter SE, DellaValle DM, Haas JD, et al. Validity of ActiGraph 2-regression model, Matthews cut-points, and NHANES cut-points for assessing free-living physical activity. J Phys Act Health 2013;10:504-14.
124. Guinhouya CB, Hubert H, Soubrier S, et al. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity among children: discrepancies in accelerometry-based cut-off points. Obesity 2006;14:774-7.
125. Ojiambo R, Cuthill R, Budd H, et al. Impact of methodological decisions on accelerometer outcome variables in young children. Int J Obes 2011;35:S98-103.
126. Cook I, Alberts M, Lambert EV. Influence of cut-points on patterns of accelerometry-measured free-living physical activity in rural and urban black South African women. J Phys Act Health 2012;9:300-10.
127. Mota J, Valente M, Aires L, et al. Accelerometer cut-points and youth physical activity prevalence. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2007;13:287-99.
128. Bailey DP, Boddy LM, Savory LA, et al. Choice of activity-intensity classification thresholds impacts upon accelerometer-assessed physical activity-health relationships in children. PLoS ONE 2013;8:1-7.
129. Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, et al. Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003-2004. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:875-81.
130. Esliger DW, Probert A, Gorber SC, et al. Validity of the Actical accelerometer step-count function. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007;39:1200-4.
131. Barreira TV, Tudor-Locke C, Champagne CM, et al. Comparison of GT3X accelerometer and YAMAX pedometer steps/day in a free-living sample of overweight and obese adults. J Phys Act Health 2013;10:263-70.
132. Behrens TK, Dinger MK. Comparisons of accelerometer and pedometer determined steps in free living samples. J Phys Act Health 2011;8:390-7.
133. Rosenkranz RR, Rosenkranz SK, Weber C. Validity of the Actical accelerometer step-count function in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2011;23:355-65.
134. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.
135. Pedisic Z. Measurement issues and poor adjustments for physical activity and sleep undermine sedentary behaviour research - the focus should shift to the balance between sleep, sedentary behaviour, standing and activity. Kinesiology 2014;46:135-46.
136. Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot 1996;10:282-98.
137. Lee IM, Shiroma EJ. Using accelerometers to measure physical activity in large-scale epidemiological studies: issues and challenges. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:197-201.
138. Howard VJ, Rhodes JD, Hutto B, et al. Successful use of telephone and mail for obtaining usable accelerometer data from a national cohort: the experience of the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study. Circulation 2013;127:AP145.
139. Cain KL, Conway TL, Adams MA, et al. Comparison of older and newer generations of ActiGraph accelerometers with the normal filter and the low frequency extension. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:1-6.
140. Jimmy G, Seiler R, Mäder U. Comparing the validity and output of the GT1M and GT3X accelerometer in 5 to 9-year-old children. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2013;17:236-48.
141. John D, Tyo B, Bassett DR. Comparison of four Actigraph accelerometers during walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42:368-74.
142. Ried-Larsen M, Brønd JC, Brage S, et al. Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the Actigraph activity monitor. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012;9:1-10.
143. Robusto KM, Trost SG. Comparison of three generations of ActiGraph™ activity monitors in children and adolescents. J Sports Sci 2012;30:1429-35.
144. Rothney MP, Apker GA, Song Y, et al. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. J Appl Physiol 2008;105:1091-7.
145. Tanha T, Tornberg A, Dencker M, et al. Accelerometer measured daily physical activity and sedentary pursuits-comparison between two models of the Actigraph and the importance of data reduction. BMC Res Notes 2013;6:1-4.
146. Paul DR, Kramer M, Moshfegh AJ, et al. Comparison of two different physical activity monitors. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:1-6.
147. Welk GJ, McClain J, Ainsworth BE. Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012;44:S39-49.
148. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Physical Activity Monitor (PAM) procedures manual. Hyattsville, MD: CDC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011.
149. Macera CA, Pratt M. Public health surveillance of physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71:97-103.
150. Ainslie PN, Reilly T, Westerterp KR. Estimating human energy expenditure: a review of techniques with particular reference to doubly labelled water. Sports Med 2003;33:683-98.
151. Bauman AE, Phongsavan P, Schoeppe S, et al. Physical activity measurement - a primer for health promotion. Promot Educ 2006;13:92-103.
152. Meusel D, Ruiz JR, Ortega FB, et al. Assessing levels of physical activity in the European population - the ALPHA project. Seleccion 2007;16:9-12.
153. Heil DP, Bennett GG, Bond KS, et al. Influence of activity monitor location and bout duration on free-living physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2009;80:424-33.
154. Routen AC, Upton D, Edwards MG, et al. Discrepancies in accelerometer-measured physical activity in children due to cut-point non-equivalence and placement site. J Sports Sci 2012;30:1303-10.
155. Swartz AM, Strath SJ, Bassett DR Jr, et al. Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:S450-6.
156. Kumahara H, Tanaka H, Schutz Y. Daily physical activity assessment: what is the importance of upper limb movements vs whole body movements? Int J Obes 2004;28:1105-10.
157. Yngve A, Nilsson A, Sjöström M, et al. Effect of monitor placement and of activity setting on the MTI accelerometer output. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:320-6.
158. Ayabe M, Kumahara H, Morimura K, et al. Epoch length and the physical activity bout analysis: an accelerometry research issue. BMC Res Notes 2013;6:1-7.
159. Dencker M, Svensson J, El-Naaman B, et al. Importance of epoch length and registration time on accelerometer measurements in younger children. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2012;52:115-21.
160. Edwardson CL, Gorely T. Epoch length and its effect on physical activity intensity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010;42:928-34.
161. McClain JJ, Abraham TL, Brusseau TA, et al. Epoch length and accelerometer outputs in children: comparison to direct observation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2008;40:2080-7.
162. Nilsson A, Ekelund U, Yngve A, et al. Assessing physical activity among children with accelerometers using different time sampling intervals and placements. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2002;14:87-96.
163. Rowlands AV, Powell SM, Humphries R, et al. The effect of accelerometer epoch on physical activity output measures. J Exerc Sci Fit 2006;4:52-8.
164. Vale S, Santos R, Silva P, et al. Preschool children physical activity measurement: importance of epoch length choice. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2009;21:413-20.
165. Mâsse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, et al. Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37:S544-54.
166. Evenson KR, Terry JW Jr. Assessment of differing definitions of accelerometer nonwear time. Res Q Exerc Sport 2009;80:355-62.
167. Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews CE, et al. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011;43:357-64.
168. Winkler EAH, Gardiner PA, Clark BK, et al. Identifying sedentary time using automated estimates of accelerometer wear time. Br J Sports Med 2012;46:436-42.
169. John D, Sasaki J, Hickey A, et al. ActiGraph™ activity monitors: "The firmware effect". Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46:834-9.
170. Kim Y, Beets MW, Pate RR, et al. The effect of reintegrating Actigraph accelerometer counts in preschool children: comparison using different epoch lengths. J Sci Med Sport 2013;16:129-34.
171. Hagströmer M, Troiano RP, Sjöström M, et al. Levels and patterns of objectively assessed physical activity-a comparison between Sweden and the United States. Am J Epidemiol 2010;171:1055-64.