Denise Jones1, Kay Crossley1, Ben Dascombe1, Harvi F Hart1, Joanne Kemp1. 1. La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre (LASEM), School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring levels of physical activity, as an outcome or in guiding rehabilitation, is challenging for clinicians. Personal activity monitors are increasing in popularity and provide potential to enhance rehabilitation protocols. However, research to support the validity and reliability of these devices at jogging and running speeds is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of the Fitbit Flex™ and ActiGraph GT3X + for measuring step count at jogging and running speeds. A secondary purpose was to examine inter-device reliability of the Fitbit Flex™. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Thirty healthy participants aged between 19 and 50 years, completed a treadmill protocol at jogging and running speeds (8 km/h to 16 km/h). Treadmill speed was progressively increased by intervals of 2 km/h. Each interval was four minutes in duration with a two minute rest period between stages. Participants were encouraged to continue through the graded exercise test until they reached the maximum running speed that they felt they could maintain for four minutes. Step count data was collected for Fitbit Flex™ devices and the ActiGraph GT3X+. Video analysis of step count was used as the criterion measure. RESULTS: At speeds of 8 to 14 km/h Mean Absolute Percentage Errors were ≤1% for the Fitbit Flex™ and the ActiGraph GT3X + when compared to step count via video analysis. Standard Error of Measurement between the three Fitbit Flex™ devices was ≤ 7 steps for speeds of 8 to 14 km/h and varied between 9 to 19 steps at 16 km/h. Fitbit Flex™ devices showed good to excellent between device reliability at speeds of 8 to14 km/h (ICC 0.723 to 0.999; p ≤ 0.001). Greater variability was evident with the low participant numbers at 16 km/h (ICC 0.527 to 0.896; p ≥ 0.02). CONCLUSION: Both the Fitbit Flex™ and the ActiGraph GT3X + provide a valid account of steps taken at jogging and running speeds up to 14 km/hr, attainable by non-elite runners on a treadmill. Fitbit Flex™ devices provide equivalent step count output to each other, enabling comparison between devices during treadmill jogging and running. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring levels of physical activity, as an outcome or in guiding rehabilitation, is challenging for clinicians. Personal activity monitors are increasing in popularity and provide potential to enhance rehabilitation protocols. However, research to support the validity and reliability of these devices at jogging and running speeds is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity of the Fitbit Flex™ and ActiGraph GT3X + for measuring step count at jogging and running speeds. A secondary purpose was to examine inter-device reliability of the Fitbit Flex™. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Thirty healthy participants aged between 19 and 50 years, completed a treadmill protocol at jogging and running speeds (8 km/h to 16 km/h). Treadmill speed was progressively increased by intervals of 2 km/h. Each interval was four minutes in duration with a two minute rest period between stages. Participants were encouraged to continue through the graded exercise test until they reached the maximum running speed that they felt they could maintain for four minutes. Step count data was collected for Fitbit Flex™ devices and the ActiGraph GT3X+. Video analysis of step count was used as the criterion measure. RESULTS: At speeds of 8 to 14 km/h Mean Absolute Percentage Errors were ≤1% for the Fitbit Flex™ and the ActiGraph GT3X + when compared to step count via video analysis. Standard Error of Measurement between the three Fitbit Flex™ devices was ≤ 7 steps for speeds of 8 to 14 km/h and varied between 9 to 19 steps at 16 km/h. Fitbit Flex™ devices showed good to excellent between device reliability at speeds of 8 to14 km/h (ICC 0.723 to 0.999; p ≤ 0.001). Greater variability was evident with the low participant numbers at 16 km/h (ICC 0.527 to 0.896; p ≥ 0.02). CONCLUSION: Both the Fitbit Flex™ and the ActiGraph GT3X + provide a valid account of steps taken at jogging and running speeds up to 14 km/hr, attainable by non-elite runners on a treadmill. Fitbit Flex™ devices provide equivalent step count output to each other, enabling comparison between devices during treadmill jogging and running. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2b.
Authors: Ryan E R Reid; Jessica A Insogna; Tamara E Carver; Andrea M Comptour; Nicole A Bewski; Cristina Sciortino; Ross E Andersen Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Meredith P Crizer; Gregory S Kazarian; Andrew N Fleischman; Jess H Lonner; Mitchell G Maltenfort; Antonia F Chen Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Breanne E Kunstler; Jill L Cook; Nicole Freene; Caroline F Finch; Joanne L Kemp; Paul D OʼHalloran; James E Gaida Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anne H Y Chu; Sheryl H X Ng; Mahsa Paknezhad; Alvaro Gauterin; David Koh; Michael S Brown; Falk Müller-Riemenschneider Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M Ryan Mason; James H Hudgins; Marilyn S Campbell; Martha J Biddle; Mindy J Ickes; Adam Dugan; Lance M Bollinger Journal: J Sports Sci Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Joanne L Kemp; Richard T R Johnston; Sally L Coburn; Denise M Jones; Anthony G Schache; Benjamin F Mentiplay; Matthew G King; Mark J Scholes; Danilo De Oliveira Silva; Anne Smith; Steven M McPhail; Kay M Crossley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna VandeBunte; Eva Gontrum; Lauren Goldberger; Corrina Fonseca; Nina Djukic; Michelle You; Joel H Kramer; Kaitlin B Casaletto Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-08-31
Authors: M Mähs; J S Pithan; I Bergmann; L Gabrys; J Graf; A Hölzemann; K Van Laerhoven; S Otto-Hagemann; M L Popescu; L Schwermann; B Wenz; I Pahmeier; A Teti Journal: Trials Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Daniel Fuller; Emily Colwell; Jonathan Low; Kassia Orychock; Melissa Ann Tobin; Bo Simango; Richard Buote; Desiree Van Heerden; Hui Luan; Kimberley Cullen; Logan Slade; Nathan G A Taylor Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Federico Germini; Noella Noronha; Victoria Borg Debono; Binu Abraham Philip; Drashti Pete; Tamara Navarro; Arun Keepanasseril; Sameer Parpia; Kerstin de Wit; Alfonso Iorio Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 5.428