Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/40559
Title: Accelerometer-assessed Physical Activity in Epidemiology: Are Monitors Equivalent?
Authors: Rowlands, Alex V.
Mirkes, Evgeny M.
Yates, Tom
Clemes, Stacey
Davies, Melanie
Khunti, Kamlesh
Edwardson, Charlotte L.
First Published: 2-Oct-2017
Publisher: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM)
Citation: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 2017
Abstract: PURPOSE: Accelerometers are increasingly being used to assess physical activity in large-scale surveys. Establishing whether key physical activity outcomes can be considered equivalent between three widely-used accelerometer brands would be a significant step towards capitalising on the increasing availability of accelerometry data for epidemiological research. METHODS: Twenty participants wore a GENEActiv, Axivity AX3 and ActiGraph GT9X on their non-dominant wrist and were observed for two-hours in a simulated living space. Participants undertook a series of seated and upright light/active behaviours at their own pace. All accelerometer data were processed identically using open-source software (GGIR) to generate physical activity outcomes (including average dynamic acceleration (ACC) and time within intensity cut-points). Data were analysed using pairwise 95% equivalence tests (±10% equivalence zone), intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and limits of agreement. RESULTS: The GENEActiv and Axivity could be considered equivalent for ACC (ICC=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.98), but ACC measured by the ActiGraph was approximately 10% lower (ICC: GENEActiv/ActiGraph 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; Axivity/ActiGraph 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94). For time spent within intensity cut-points, all three accelerometers could be considered equivalent to each other for over 85% of outcomes (ICC≥0.69, lower 95% CI≥0.36), with the GENEActiv and Axivity equivalent for 100% of outcomes (ICC≥0.95, lower 95% CI≥0.86). CONCLUSIONS: GENEActiv and Axivity data processed in GGIR are largely equivalent. If comparing GENEActiv or Axivity to the ActiGraph, time spent within intensity cut-points has good agreement. These findings can be used to inform selection of appropriate outcomes if comparing outputs from these accelerometer brands.
DOI Link: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001435
ISSN: 0195-9131
eISSN: 1530-0315
Links: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/publishahead/Accelerometer_assessed_Physical_Activity_in.97105.aspx
http://hdl.handle.net/2381/40559
Embargo on file until: 2-Oct-2018
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Copyright © 2017, Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). Deposited with reference to the publisher’s open access archiving policy.
Description: The file associated with this record is under embargo until 12 months after publication, in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. The full text may be available through the publisher links provided above.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Rowlands_et_al_2017_Equivalency_final_submitted.pdfPost-review (final submitted author manuscript)1.06 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.