Kati S Karinharju1,2, Alexandra M Boughey3, Sean M Tweedy1,4, Kelly M Clanchy5, Stewart G Trost6, Sjaan R Gomersall3. 1. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia. 2. Satakunta University of Applied Sciences, Pori, Finland. 3. School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia. 4. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia. 5. School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, Australia. 6. Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation at Queensland Centre for Children's Health, Research, Queensland University of Technology, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Abstract
Objective: A recent Apple Watch® activity-monitoring innovation permits manual wheelchair users to monitor daily push counts. This study evaluated the validity of the Apple Watch® push count estimate.Design: Criterion validity.Setting: Southern Finland and Southeast Queensland, Australia.Participants: Twenty-six manual wheelchair users from Finland and Australia were filmed completing a standardized battery of activities while wearing the Apple Watch® (dominant wrist).Outcome Measures: Wheelchair pushes as determined by the Apple Watch® were compared to directly observed pushes. Results: Agreement between Apple Watch® push counts and directly observed pushes was evaluated using Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analyses. Apple Watch® pushes and directly observed push counts were strongly correlated (ICC = 0.77, P < 0.01) (r = 0.84, P < 0.01). Bland Altman plots indicated that the Apple Watch® underestimated push counts (M = -103; 95% ULoA = 217; LLoA = -423 pushes). Mean absolute percentage error was 13.5% which is comparable to studies evaluating agreement between pedometer-based step counts and directly observed steps. Conclusion: Apple Watch® push-count estimates are acceptable for personal, self-monitoring purposes and for research entailing group-level analyses, but less acceptable where accurate push-count measures for an individual is required.
Objective: A recent Apple Watch® activity-monitoring innovation permits manual wheelchair users to monitor daily push counts. This study evaluated the validity of the Apple Watch® push count estimate.Design: Criterion validity.Setting: Southern Finland and Southeast Queensland, Australia.Participants: Twenty-six manual wheelchair users from Finland and Australia were filmed completing a standardized battery of activities while wearing the Apple Watch® (dominant wrist).Outcome Measures: Wheelchair pushes as determined by the Apple Watch® were compared to directly observed pushes. Results: Agreement between Apple Watch® push counts and directly observed pushes was evaluated using Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Pearson correlations and Bland-Altman analyses. Apple Watch® pushes and directly observed push counts were strongly correlated (ICC = 0.77, P < 0.01) (r = 0.84, P < 0.01). Bland Altman plots indicated that the Apple Watch® underestimated push counts (M = -103; 95% ULoA = 217; LLoA = -423 pushes). Mean absolute percentage error was 13.5% which is comparable to studies evaluating agreement between pedometer-based step counts and directly observed steps. Conclusion:Apple Watch® push-count estimates are acceptable for personal, self-monitoring purposes and for research entailing group-level analyses, but less acceptable where accurate push-count measures for an individual is required.
Entities:
Keywords:
Apple Watch®; Monitoring; Physical activity; Push counts; Wheelchair
Authors: C F J Nooijen; S de Groot; K Postma; M P Bergen; H J Stam; J B J Bussmann; R J van den Berg-Emons Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Ashraf S Gorgey; David R Dolbow; James D Dolbow; Refka K Khalil; Camilo Castillo; David R Gater Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Dena M Bravata; Crystal Smith-Spangler; Vandana Sundaram; Allison L Gienger; Nancy Lin; Robyn Lewis; Christopher D Stave; Ingram Olkin; John R Sirard Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 56.272