Marieke De Craemer1, Ellen De Decker2, Alejandro Santos-Lozano3, Maïté Verloigne2, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij2, Benedicte Deforche4, Greet Cardon2. 1. Ghent University, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. Electronic address: Marieke.DeCraemer@UGent.be. 2. Ghent University, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Léon, Léon, Spain; Research Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre (i+12), Madrid, Spain. 4. Ghent University, Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent, Belgium; Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Human Biometry and Biomechanics, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate the GT1M actigraph accelerometer step count function, and the Omron Walking Style Pro pedometer against accelerometer-based activity counts, and to compare pedometer-based and accelerometer-based steps in preschoolers. DESIGN: A sample of 41 preschoolers (21 boys, mean age 5.43±0.63 years) from one preschool in Flanders, Belgium, was included in data analysis. METHODS: Accelerometer-based and pedometer-based steps were simultaneously collected in this Flemish sample of preschool children. Preschoolers wore two motion sensors (accelerometer and pedometer) for four consecutive days. Pearson correlations were calculated to compare accelerometer activity counts with accelerometer-based steps, accelerometer activity counts with pedometer-based steps and accelerometer-based steps with pedometer-based steps. Bland-Altman analysis was carried out to investigate the agreement between the pedometer-based and the accelerometer-based steps. RESULTS: Accelerometer-based steps correlated moderately high with accelerometer activity counts per hour (r=0.77) and per day (r=0.82). Pedometer-based steps correlated moderately high with accelerometer activity counts per hour (r=0.65) and per day (r=0.64). High correlations were revealed between steps from both devices (hourly: r=0.92; daily: r=0.89). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 221.81 (±1679.78) and the limits of agreement ranged from -3070.57 to 3514.18 steps per day. CONCLUSIONS: Both the accelerometer-based as pedometer-based step counts are valid estimates of preschoolers' physical activity levels during free-living activities based on group estimates. High agreement between both step counts justifies combining and comparing pedometer- and accelerometer-based step counts.
OBJECTIVES: To validate the GT1M actigraph accelerometer step count function, and the Omron Walking Style Pro pedometer against accelerometer-based activity counts, and to compare pedometer-based and accelerometer-based steps in preschoolers. DESIGN: A sample of 41 preschoolers (21 boys, mean age 5.43±0.63 years) from one preschool in Flanders, Belgium, was included in data analysis. METHODS: Accelerometer-based and pedometer-based steps were simultaneously collected in this Flemish sample of preschool children. Preschoolers wore two motion sensors (accelerometer and pedometer) for four consecutive days. Pearson correlations were calculated to compare accelerometer activity counts with accelerometer-based steps, accelerometer activity counts with pedometer-based steps and accelerometer-based steps with pedometer-based steps. Bland-Altman analysis was carried out to investigate the agreement between the pedometer-based and the accelerometer-based steps. RESULTS: Accelerometer-based steps correlated moderately high with accelerometer activity counts per hour (r=0.77) and per day (r=0.82). Pedometer-based steps correlated moderately high with accelerometer activity counts per hour (r=0.65) and per day (r=0.64). High correlations were revealed between steps from both devices (hourly: r=0.92; daily: r=0.89). The Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of 221.81 (±1679.78) and the limits of agreement ranged from -3070.57 to 3514.18 steps per day. CONCLUSIONS: Both the accelerometer-based as pedometer-based step counts are valid estimates of preschoolers' physical activity levels during free-living activities based on group estimates. High agreement between both step counts justifies combining and comparing pedometer- and accelerometer-based step counts.
Authors: Marieke De Craemer; Mina Lateva; Violeta Iotova; Ellen De Decker; Maïté Verloigne; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Odysseas Androutsos; Piotr Socha; Zbigniew Kulaga; Luis Moreno; Berthold Koletzko; Yannis Manios; Greet Cardon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Erik Sigmund; Dagmar Sigmundová; Petr Badura; Lucie Trhlíková; Andrea Madarasová Gecková Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Xiaolin Yang; Janne Kulmala; Harto Hakonen; Mirja Hirvensalo; Suvi P Rovio; Katja Pahkala; Tuomas Kukko; Nina Hutri-Kähönen; Olli T Raitakari; Tuija H Tammelin Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Vicky Van Stappen; Delfien Van Dyck; Julie Latomme; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Luis Moreno; Piotr Socha; Violeta Iotova; Berthold Koletzko; Yannis Manios; Odysseas Androutsos; Greet Cardon; Marieke De Craemer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 3.390