Hyun-Sung An1, Youngwon Kim2, Jung-Min Lee3. 1. School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68182, USA. Electronic address: han@unomaha.edu. 2. MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 285 Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Youngwon.Kim@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk. 3. School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, University of Nebraska at Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68182, USA. Electronic address: jungminlee@unomaha.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the accuracy of inclinometer functions of the ActiGraph GT3X+ (AG) (worn on the waist and wrist) and the activPAL (AP) in assessing time spent sitting, standing, and stepping. METHODS: A total of 62 adults (age: 18-40 yrs; male:37; female:25) wore three activity monitors (AG waist, and AG wrist, and AP) while completing 15 different types of activities. The 15 activities were classified into 3 different postures (sitting, standing, and stepping) based on the directly observed behaviors. Minutes estimated from the inclinometers of the three monitors were directly compared to those from direct observation (criterion method) using mean absolute percent error (MAPE) values, effect sizes (Cohen's D), and equivalence testing. RESULTS: The AP was more accurate than the both waist- and wrist-worn AG in both sitting and standing activities, but the AG was more accurate than the AP in stepping activity when the stepping activity was determined with 0.7 step/s threshold. Equivalence testing indicated that the time measured by the waist-, wrist-worn AG, and AP showed significant equivalence to the time in the equivalence zone (90% confidence interval: 2.7 to 3.3min) for 6, 5, and 7 activities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AP was reasonably accurate for detecting sitting, standing, and stepping, and the AG was very accurate for classifying stepping when the stepping activity was determined by the formula created by 0.7 step/s threshold. It is expected that the result of the study would contribute to performing movement pattern analyses and health promotion research for classifying activities. Copyright Â
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the accuracy of inclinometer functions of the ActiGraph GT3X+ (AG) (worn on the waist and wrist) and the activPAL (AP) in assessing time spent sitting, standing, and stepping. METHODS: A total of 62 adults (age: 18-40 yrs; male:37; female:25) wore three activity monitors (AG waist, and AG wrist, and AP) while completing 15 different types of activities. The 15 activities were classified into 3 different postures (sitting, standing, and stepping) based on the directly observed behaviors. Minutes estimated from the inclinometers of the three monitors were directly compared to those from direct observation (criterion method) using mean absolute percent error (MAPE) values, effect sizes (Cohen's D), and equivalence testing. RESULTS: The AP was more accurate than the both waist- and wrist-worn AG in both sitting and standing activities, but the AG was more accurate than the AP in stepping activity when the stepping activity was determined with 0.7 step/s threshold. Equivalence testing indicated that the time measured by the waist-, wrist-worn AG, and AP showed significant equivalence to the time in the equivalence zone (90% confidence interval: 2.7 to 3.3min) for 6, 5, and 7 activities, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AP was reasonably accurate for detecting sitting, standing, and stepping, and the AG was very accurate for classifying stepping when the stepping activity was determined by the formula created by 0.7 step/s threshold. It is expected that the result of the study would contribute to performing movement pattern analyses and health promotion research for classifying activities. Copyright Â
Authors: Kong Y Chen; Sari A Acra; Karen Majchrzak; Candice L Donahue; Lemont Baker; Linda Clemens; Ming Sun; Maciej S Buchowski Journal: Diabetes Technol Ther Date: 2003 Impact factor: 6.118
Authors: Neville Owen; Phillip B Sparling; Geneviève N Healy; David W Dunstan; Charles E Matthews Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: D W Dunstan; J Salmon; N Owen; T Armstrong; P Z Zimmet; T A Welborn; A J Cameron; T Dwyer; D Jolley; J E Shaw Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2005-10-07 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Susan B Sisson; Sarah M Camhi; Timothy S Church; Corby K Martin; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Claude Bouchard; Conrad P Earnest; Steven R Smith; Robert L Newton; Tuomo Rankinen; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Metab Syndr Relat Disord Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 1.894
Authors: Genevieve A Dumas; Tegan R Upjohn; Andrew Leger; Alain Delisle; Karine Charpentier; Andre Plamondon; Erik Salazar Journal: Ergonomics Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Jason Fanning; W Jack Rejeski; Shyh-Huei Chen; Barbara J Nicklas; Michael P Walkup; Robert S Axtell; Roger A Fielding; Nancy W Glynn; Abby C King; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Anne B Newman; Marco Pahor; Catrine Tudor-Locke; Michael E Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Philip M Dixon; Pedro F Saint-Maurice; Youngwon Kim; Paul Hibbing; Yang Bai; Gregory J Welk Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Sai Krupa Das; Akari J Miki; Caroline M Blanchard; Edward Sazonov; Cheryl H Gilhooly; Sujit Dey; Colton B Wolk; Chor San H Khoo; James O Hill; Robin P Shook Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 11.567
Authors: Grace E Vincent; Charlotte C Gupta; Madeline Sprajcer; Corneel Vandelanotte; Mitch J Duncan; Phil Tucker; Michele Lastella; Georgia A Tuckwell; Sally A Ferguson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Claire Beale; Erica L Rauff; Wendy J O'Brien; Sarah P Shultz; Philip W Fink; Rozanne Kruger Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-12 Impact factor: 3.390