Current physical activity (PA) recommendations for women experiencing a normal pregnancy reflect recent research showing numerous health benefits for mother and offspring. However, few studies have evaluated PA devices' reliability and validity during pregnancy, because anatomical and physiological changes throughout gestation could affect an instrument's accuracy. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of PA devices worn on the hip, ankle, and triceps during pregnancy and postpartum. METHODS: Thirty-three women performed six activities of daily living and one treadmill walk at approximately 21 and 32 wk of pregnancy, and 12 wk postpartum. There were two visits at each time period, 1 wk apart. Energy expenditure (oxygen consumption) was measured by using indirect calorimetry (IC; criterion measure), whereas PA was quantified by using accelerometers and pedometers placed at the right hip and ankle and left triceps. Interclass reliability and monitor validity compared with IC in relative (mL·kg·min) terms were calculated using Pearson correlation. Both multitrial and single-trial intraclass reliabilities (ICC) were estimated using ANOVA to assess monitor reliability at each time period. SEM values were calculated in relative terms for each time period. RESULTS: The reliability of the devices was moderate/strong because 66% of the Pearson correlations were between 0.6 and 1.0. Multitrial ICC values were largely in the moderate/strong range because 38% of the ICC values were between 0.6 and 0.79 and 50% were between 0.8 and 1.0. The SEM values for each device between visits ranged from 7% to 23% of the mean values. Comparison between IC and devices showed that 40% and 46% of the validity coefficients were between 0.4 and 0.59 and between 0.6 and 0.79, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PA devices show moderate/strong reliability and moderate validity for measuring PA during pregnancy and postpartum.
Current physical activity (PA) recommendations for women experiencing a normal pregnancy reflect recent research showing numerous health benefits for mother and offspring. However, few studies have evaluated PA devices' reliability and validity during pregnancy, because anatomical and physiological changes throughout gestation could affect an instrument's accuracy. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the reliability and validity of PA devices worn on the hip, ankle, and triceps during pregnancy and postpartum. METHODS: Thirty-three women performed six activities of daily living and one treadmill walk at approximately 21 and 32 wk of pregnancy, and 12 wk postpartum. There were two visits at each time period, 1 wk apart. Energy expenditure (oxygen consumption) was measured by using indirect calorimetry (IC; criterion measure), whereas PA was quantified by using accelerometers and pedometers placed at the right hip and ankle and left triceps. Interclass reliability and monitor validity compared with IC in relative (mL·kg·min) terms were calculated using Pearson correlation. Both multitrial and single-trial intraclass reliabilities (ICC) were estimated using ANOVA to assess monitor reliability at each time period. SEM values were calculated in relative terms for each time period. RESULTS: The reliability of the devices was moderate/strong because 66% of the Pearson correlations were between 0.6 and 1.0. Multitrial ICC values were largely in the moderate/strong range because 38% of the ICC values were between 0.6 and 0.79 and 50% were between 0.8 and 1.0. The SEM values for each device between visits ranged from 7% to 23% of the mean values. Comparison between IC and devices showed that 40% and 46% of the validity coefficients were between 0.4 and 0.59 and between 0.6 and 0.79, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PA devices show moderate/strong reliability and moderate validity for measuring PA during pregnancy and postpartum.
Authors: Ana Mendinueta; Haritz Esnal; Haritz Arrieta; Miren Arrue; Nerea Urbieta; Itziar Ubillos; Kristina W Whitworth; Xavier Delclòs-Alió; Guillem Vich; Jesus Ibarluzea Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rebeca Benito-Villena; Ingrid Guerrero-Martínez; Mariña Naveiro-Fuentes; Naomi Cano-Ibánez; Pedro Femia-Marzo; José Luis Gallo-Vallejo; Juan Mozas-Moreno; Carmen Amezcua-Prieto Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Kathryn R Hesketh; Kelly R Evenson; Marissa Stroo; Shayna M Clancy; Truls Østbye; Sara E Benjamin-Neelon Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2018-04-19