Jeremy A Steeves1, Heather R Bowles, James J McClain, Kevin W Dodd, Robert J Brychta, Juan Wang, Kong Y Chen. 1. 1Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; 2Risk Factor Monitoring and Methods Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; 3Biometry Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; and 4Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Obesity Branch, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study compared sitting, standing, and stepping classifications from thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL monitors under laboratory and free-living conditions. METHODS: Adults wore both monitors on the right thigh while performing activities (six sitting, two standing, nine stepping, and one cycling) and writing on a whiteboard with intermittent stepping under laboratory conditions (n = 21) and under free-living conditions for 3 d (n = 18). Percent time correctly classified was calculated under laboratory conditions. Between-monitor agreement and weighted κ were calculated under free-living conditions. RESULTS: In the laboratory, both monitors correctly classified 100% of standing time and >95% of the time spent in four of six sitting postures. Both monitors demonstrated misclassification of laboratory stool sitting time (ActiGraph 14% vs. activPAL 95%). ActivPAL misclassified 14% of the time spent sitting with legs outstretched; ActiGraph was 100% accurate. Monitors were >95% accurate for stepping, although ActiGraph was less so for descending stairs (86%), ascending stairs (92%), and running at 2.91 m·s(-1) (93%). Monitors classified whiteboard writing differently (ActiGraph 83% standing/15% stepping vs. activPAL 98% standing/2% stepping). ActivPAL classified 93% of cycling time as stepping, whereas ActiGraph classified <1% of cycling time as stepping. During free-living wear, monitors had substantial agreement (86% observed; weighted κ = 0.77). Monitors classified similar amounts of time as sitting (ActiGraph 64% vs. activPAL 62%). There were differences in time recorded as standing (ActiGraph 21% vs. activPAL 27%) and stepping (ActiGraph 15% vs. activPAL 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in data processing algorithms may have resulted in the observed disagreement in posture and activity classification between thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL. Despite between-monitor agreement in classifying sitting time under free-living conditions, ActiGraph appears to be more sensitive to free-living upright walking motions than activPAL.
PURPOSE: This study compared sitting, standing, and stepping classifications from thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL monitors under laboratory and free-living conditions. METHODS: Adults wore both monitors on the right thigh while performing activities (six sitting, two standing, nine stepping, and one cycling) and writing on a whiteboard with intermittent stepping under laboratory conditions (n = 21) and under free-living conditions for 3 d (n = 18). Percent time correctly classified was calculated under laboratory conditions. Between-monitor agreement and weighted κ were calculated under free-living conditions. RESULTS: In the laboratory, both monitors correctly classified 100% of standing time and >95% of the time spent in four of six sitting postures. Both monitors demonstrated misclassification of laboratory stool sitting time (ActiGraph 14% vs. activPAL 95%). ActivPAL misclassified 14% of the time spent sitting with legs outstretched; ActiGraph was 100% accurate. Monitors were >95% accurate for stepping, although ActiGraph was less so for descending stairs (86%), ascending stairs (92%), and running at 2.91 m·s(-1) (93%). Monitors classified whiteboard writing differently (ActiGraph 83% standing/15% stepping vs. activPAL 98% standing/2% stepping). ActivPAL classified 93% of cycling time as stepping, whereas ActiGraph classified <1% of cycling time as stepping. During free-living wear, monitors had substantial agreement (86% observed; weighted κ = 0.77). Monitors classified similar amounts of time as sitting (ActiGraph 64% vs. activPAL 62%). There were differences in time recorded as standing (ActiGraph 21% vs. activPAL 27%) and stepping (ActiGraph 15% vs. activPAL 11%). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in data processing algorithms may have resulted in the observed disagreement in posture and activity classification between thigh-worn ActiGraph and activPAL. Despite between-monitor agreement in classifying sitting time under free-living conditions, ActiGraph appears to be more sensitive to free-living upright walking motions than activPAL.
Authors: Katharina Wick; Oliver Faude; Susanne Schwager; Lukas Zahner; Lars Donath Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Edward L Melanson; Kate Lyden; Ellie Gibbons; Kathleen M Gavin; Pamela Wolfe; Margaret E Wierman; Robert S Schwartz; Wendy M Kohrt Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Guimin Dong; Mehdi Boukhechba; Kelly M Shaffer; Lee M Ritterband; Daniel G Gioeli; Matthew J Reilley; Tri M Le; Paul R Kunk; Todd W Bauer; Philip I Chow Journal: J Healthc Inform Res Date: 2021-04-21
Authors: Supun Nakandala; Marta M Jankowska; Fatima Tuz-Zahra; John Bellettiere; Jordan A Carlson; Andrea Z LaCroix; Sheri J Hartman; Dori E Rosenberg; Jingjing Zou; Arun Kumar; Loki Natarajan Journal: J Meas Phys Behav Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: J B Courtney; K Nuss; K Lyden; K K Harrall; D H Glueck; A Villalobos; R F Hamman; J R Hebert; T G Hurley; J Leiferman; K Li; K Alaimo; J S Litt Journal: Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci Date: 2020-12-28