PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of three objective measures of physical activity (Accusplit Eagle 120 mechanical pedometer (AE120), NL-2000 electronic pedometer, and IDEEA pattern-recognition device) that varied in their levels of sophistication, among older adults at risk for mobility disability. In addition, we examined the potential influences of gait speed and body mass index (BMI) on step count accuracy. METHODS: Step counts recorded on the three devices were compared against manual step counts made by two investigators as each participant walked 131 m around an indoor track at their preferred walking speed (N=29; 75.8+/-4.2 yr). Gait speed was determined by dividing total distance walked by time to completion. BMI was calculated from height and body mass measurements. RESULTS: All three devices significantly underestimated steps taken (AE120=22.8+/-53.9 steps; NL-2000=4.0+/-5.8 steps; IDEEA=5.6+/-7.8 steps), but there was no significant difference between devices (P=0.084). Steps counted by the AE120, NL-2000, and IDEEA were significantly correlated with manual step counts (r=0.508, 0.980, and 0.965, respectively; P<or=0.005). However, the AE120 was not clinically acceptable, sharing only 26% common variance with actual steps taken. The accuracy of the three devices was not influenced systematically by either gait speed or BMI. CONCLUSION: Our data show that the AE120 is a poor choice for measuring physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. Both the NL-2000 and IDEEA devices have acceptable measurement qualities; however, the NL-2000 is the more practical of the two for use in either research or clinical practice.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of three objective measures of physical activity (Accusplit Eagle 120 mechanical pedometer (AE120), NL-2000 electronic pedometer, and IDEEA pattern-recognition device) that varied in their levels of sophistication, among older adults at risk for mobility disability. In addition, we examined the potential influences of gait speed and body mass index (BMI) on step count accuracy. METHODS: Step counts recorded on the three devices were compared against manual step counts made by two investigators as each participant walked 131 m around an indoor track at their preferred walking speed (N=29; 75.8+/-4.2 yr). Gait speed was determined by dividing total distance walked by time to completion. BMI was calculated from height and body mass measurements. RESULTS: All three devices significantly underestimated steps taken (AE120=22.8+/-53.9 steps; NL-2000=4.0+/-5.8 steps; IDEEA=5.6+/-7.8 steps), but there was no significant difference between devices (P=0.084). Steps counted by the AE120, NL-2000, and IDEEA were significantly correlated with manual step counts (r=0.508, 0.980, and 0.965, respectively; P<or=0.005). However, the AE120 was not clinically acceptable, sharing only 26% common variance with actual steps taken. The accuracy of the three devices was not influenced systematically by either gait speed or BMI. CONCLUSION: Our data show that the AE120 is a poor choice for measuring physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. Both the NL-2000 and IDEEA devices have acceptable measurement qualities; however, the NL-2000 is the more practical of the two for use in either research or clinical practice.
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Wenyu Wang; Amanda Fretts; Daichi Shimbo; Elisa T Lee; Barbara V Howard; Mary J Roman; Richard B Devereux Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Capri G Foy; Mara Z Vitolins; L Douglas Case; Susan J Harris; Carol Massa-Fanale; Richard J Hopley; Leah Gardner; Nicole Rudiger; Kathryn Yamamoto; Brittany Swain; David C Goff; Suzanne C Danhauer; Deborah Booth; Jamie Gaspari Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Maria Grazia Benedetti; Annalisa Di Gioia; Linda Conti; Lisa Berti; Linda Degli Esposti; Giulietta Tarrini; Nazario Melchionda; Sandro Giannini Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Amanda M Fretts; Mihriye Mete; Barbara V Howard; Lyle G Best; David S Siscovick; Sigal Eilat-Adar; Jinying Zhao Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Anthony P Marsh; James A Janssen; Walter T Ambrosius; Jonathan H Burdette; Jill E Gaukstern; Ashley R Morgan; Beverly A Nesbit; J Brielle Paolini; Jessica L Sheedy; W Jack Rejeski Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2013-08-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Verónica Cabanas-Sánchez; Miguel A De la Cámara; Kabir P Sadarangani; Sara Higueras-Fresnillo; David Martinez-Gomez Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 5.095