Veronica T Rowe1, Marsha Neville2. 1. Veronica T. Rowe, PhD, OTR/L, is Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy, University of Central Arkansas, Conway; vrowe@uca.edu. 2. Marsha Neville, PhD, OT, is Associate Professor, School of Occupational Therapy, Texas Woman's University, Dallas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the reliability of the Fitbit® Flex™ compared with the ActiGraph® Bluetooth® Smart wGT3X-BT wireless activity monitor and to contribute to the clinical utility of accelerometry measurement of upper extremity (UE) movement. METHOD: Two studies were conducted at different sites with healthy adult participants. In Study 1, participants wore both accelerometers on both wrists during everyday activities for a 24-hr period. In Study 2, participants wore both accelerometers on the dominant wrist for 4 hr during an active period of the day. All participants wore the accelerometers during regular daily activities. RESULTS: Data recorded from the Fitbit and the ActiGraph showed a high positive correlation; however, the Fitbit recorded significantly fewer movements than the ActiGraph. CONCLUSION: Although the Fitbit and the ActiGraph measure UE activity similarly, the Fitbit was not as sensitive as the ActiGraph. This study provides informative data on the clinical utility of the Fitbit compared with the ActiGraph.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the reliability of the Fitbit® Flex™ compared with the ActiGraph® Bluetooth® Smart wGT3X-BT wireless activity monitor and to contribute to the clinical utility of accelerometry measurement of upper extremity (UE) movement. METHOD: Two studies were conducted at different sites with healthy adult participants. In Study 1, participants wore both accelerometers on both wrists during everyday activities for a 24-hr period. In Study 2, participants wore both accelerometers on the dominant wrist for 4 hr during an active period of the day. All participants wore the accelerometers during regular daily activities. RESULTS: Data recorded from the Fitbit and the ActiGraph showed a high positive correlation; however, the Fitbit recorded significantly fewer movements than the ActiGraph. CONCLUSION: Although the Fitbit and the ActiGraph measure UE activity similarly, the Fitbit was not as sensitive as the ActiGraph. This study provides informative data on the clinical utility of the Fitbit compared with the ActiGraph.
Authors: Catherine R Hoyt; Shelby K Brown; Sarah K Sherman; Melanie Wood-Smith; Andrew N Van; Mario Ortega; Annie L Nguyen; Catherine E Lang; Bradley L Schlaggar; Nico U F Dosenbach Journal: Res Dev Disabil Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Yuri Rykov; Thuan-Quoc Thach; Gerard Dunleavy; Adam Charles Roberts; George Christopoulos; Chee-Kiong Soh; Josip Car Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 4.773
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