PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate methods for analyzing wrist accelerometer data in youth. METHODS: A total of 181 youth (mean ± SD; age, 12.0 ± 1.5 yr) completed 30 min of supine rest and 8 min each of 2 to 7 structured activities, selected from a list of 25. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and regression analyses were used to develop prediction equations for energy expenditure (child-METs; measured activity V˙O2 divided by measured resting V˙O2) and cut points for computing time spent in sedentary behaviors (SB), light (LPA), moderate (MPA), and vigorous (VPA) physical activity. Both vertical axis (VA) and vector magnitude (VM) counts per 5 s were used for this purpose. The validation study included 42 youth (age, 12.6 ± 0.8 yr) who completed approximately 2 h of unstructured PA. During all measurements, activity data were collected using an ActiGraph GT3X or GT3X+, positioned on the dominant wrist. Oxygen consumption was measured using a Cosmed K4b. Repeated-measures ANOVA were used to compare measured versus predicted child-METs (regression only) and time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA. RESULTS: All ROC cut points were similar for area under the curve (≥0.825), sensitivity (≥0.756), and specificity (≥0.634), and they significantly underestimated LPA and overestimated VPA (P < 0.05). The VA and VM regression models were within ±0.21 child-METs of mean measured child-METs and ±2.5 min of measured time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to measured values, the VA and VM regression models developed on wrist accelerometer data had insignificant mean bias for child-METs and time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA; however, they had large individual errors.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop and validate methods for analyzing wrist accelerometer data in youth. METHODS: A total of 181 youth (mean ± SD; age, 12.0 ± 1.5 yr) completed 30 min of supine rest and 8 min each of 2 to 7 structured activities, selected from a list of 25. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and regression analyses were used to develop prediction equations for energy expenditure (child-METs; measured activity V˙O2 divided by measured resting V˙O2) and cut points for computing time spent in sedentary behaviors (SB), light (LPA), moderate (MPA), and vigorous (VPA) physical activity. Both vertical axis (VA) and vector magnitude (VM) counts per 5 s were used for this purpose. The validation study included 42 youth (age, 12.6 ± 0.8 yr) who completed approximately 2 h of unstructured PA. During all measurements, activity data were collected using an ActiGraph GT3X or GT3X+, positioned on the dominant wrist. Oxygen consumption was measured using a Cosmed K4b. Repeated-measures ANOVA were used to compare measured versus predicted child-METs (regression only) and time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA. RESULTS: All ROC cut points were similar for area under the curve (≥0.825), sensitivity (≥0.756), and specificity (≥0.634), and they significantly underestimated LPA and overestimated VPA (P < 0.05). The VA and VM regression models were within ±0.21 child-METs of mean measured child-METs and ±2.5 min of measured time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA, respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to measured values, the VA and VM regression models developed on wrist accelerometer data had insignificant mean bias for child-METs and time spent in SB, LPA, MPA, and VPA; however, they had large individual errors.
Authors: Russell R Pate; Maria J Almeida; Kerry L McIver; Karin A Pfeiffer; Marsha Dowda Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Kelly R Evenson; Diane J Catellier; Karminder Gill; Kristin S Ondrak; Robert G McMurray Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Mary E Rosenberger; William L Haskell; Fahd Albinali; Selene Mota; Jason Nawyn; Stephen Intille Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Dale W Esliger; Ann V Rowlands; Tina L Hurst; Michael Catt; Peter Murray; Roger G Eston Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Andrea Mannini; Mary Rosenberger; William L Haskell; Angelo M Sabatini; Stephen S Intille Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Amanda N Szabo-Reed; Richard A Washburn; J Leon Greene; Lauren T Ptomey; Anna Gorczyca; Robert H Lee; Todd D Little; Jaehoon Lee; Jeff Honas; Joseph E Donnelly Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-01-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Youngwon Kim; Paul Hibbing; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Laura D Ellingson; Erin Hennessy; Dana L Wolff-Hughes; Frank M Perna; Gregory J Welk Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gregory J Welk; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Youngwon Kim; Laura D Ellingson; Paul Hibbing; Dana L Wolff-Hughes; Frank M Perna Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Youngwon Kim; Paul Hibbing; April Y Oh; Frank M Perna; Gregory J Welk Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Mirja Quante; Rui Wang; Jia Weng; Emily R Kaplan; Michael Rueschman; Elsie M Taveras; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Matthew W Gillman; Susan Redline Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 2.964
Authors: Annemarie Koster; Eric J Shiroma; Paolo Caserotti; Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Nancy W Glynn; Tamara B Harris Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.411