Stacy A Clemes1, Nuala K Deans. 1. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, United Kingdom. S.A.Clemes@lboro.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the presence and duration of reactivity to wearing a pedometer and recording daily step counts in free-living adults. METHODS: On the first visit to the laboratory, 90 participants (69% were females, age = 26.8 ± 13.0 yr, body mass index = 23.4 ± 4.0 kg·m(-2)), blinded to the study aim, were provided with a sealed pedometer (New Lifestyles NL-800) and informed that it was a "body posture monitor" (covert condition). Participants wore the pedometer throughout waking hours for 1 wk. On their return to the laboratory, stored step counts were recorded, and participants were informed that the device was a pedometer. Participants wore the pedometer unsealed (no restriction on viewing the step count display) for 2 wk, during which they recorded their daily step count in a diary (diary condition). Mean daily step counts recorded during the covert condition and during weeks 1 and 2 of the diary condition were compared using a repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: There was a significant overall effect of study condition (P < 0.001), with post hoc analyses revealing that mean daily step counts reported during the first week of the diary condition (9898 ± 3002 steps per day) were significantly higher than those reported during the covert condition (8331 ± 3010 steps per day) and during the second week of the diary condition (8226 ± 3170 steps per day, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reactivity to wearing unsealed pedometers and step count recording seems to last for 1 wk. In the absence of any intervention material, step counts return to normal levels during the second week of monitoring and therefore represent a more accurate estimate of habitual activity. These findings have important implications to both researchers and practitioners interested in the use of pedometers for physical activity surveillance and promotion.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the presence and duration of reactivity to wearing a pedometer and recording daily step counts in free-living adults. METHODS: On the first visit to the laboratory, 90 participants (69% were females, age = 26.8 ± 13.0 yr, body mass index = 23.4 ± 4.0 kg·m(-2)), blinded to the study aim, were provided with a sealed pedometer (New Lifestyles NL-800) and informed that it was a "body posture monitor" (covert condition). Participants wore the pedometer throughout waking hours for 1 wk. On their return to the laboratory, stored step counts were recorded, and participants were informed that the device was a pedometer. Participants wore the pedometer unsealed (no restriction on viewing the step count display) for 2 wk, during which they recorded their daily step count in a diary (diary condition). Mean daily step counts recorded during the covert condition and during weeks 1 and 2 of the diary condition were compared using a repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: There was a significant overall effect of study condition (P < 0.001), with post hoc analyses revealing that mean daily step counts reported during the first week of the diary condition (9898 ± 3002 steps per day) were significantly higher than those reported during the covert condition (8331 ± 3010 steps per day) and during the second week of the diary condition (8226 ± 3170 steps per day, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reactivity to wearing unsealed pedometers and step count recording seems to last for 1 wk. In the absence of any intervention material, step counts return to normal levels during the second week of monitoring and therefore represent a more accurate estimate of habitual activity. These findings have important implications to both researchers and practitioners interested in the use of pedometers for physical activity surveillance and promotion.
Authors: Keith M Diaz; Jeff Goldsmith; Heather Greenlee; Garrett Strizich; Qibin Qi; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Denise C Vidot; Christina Buelna; Carrie E Brintz; Tali Elfassy; Linda C Gallo; Martha L Daviglus; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Robert C Kaplan Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard A Winett; Brenda M Davy; Elaina Marinik; Jyoti Savla; Sheila G Winett; Stuart M Phillips; Lesley D Lutes Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Cheryl L Albright; Alana D Steffen; Lynne R Wilkens; Kami K White; Rachel Novotny; Claudio R Nigg; Kara Saiki; Wendy J Brown Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Cory L Christiansen; Matthew J Miller; Amanda M Murray; Ryan O Stephenson; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley; William R Hiatt; Margaret L Schenkman Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.966