Adolescent pedometer protocols: examining reactivity, tampering and participants’ perceptions

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate adolescents' potential reactivity and tampering while wearing pedometers by comparing different monitoring protocols to accelerometer output. The sample included adolescents (N = 123, age range = 14-15 years) from three secondary schools in New South Wales, Australia. Schools were randomised to one of the three pedometer monitoring protocols: (i) daily sealed (DS) pedometer group, (ii) unsealed (US) pedometer group or (iii) weekly sealed (WS) pedometer group. Participants wore pedometers (Yamax Digi-Walker CW700, Yamax Corporation, Kumamoto City, Japan) and accelerometers (Actigraph GT3X+, Pensacola, USA) simultaneously for seven days. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine potential reactivity. Bivariate correlations between step counts and accelerometer output were calculated to explore potential tampering. The correlation between accelerometer output and pedometer steps/day was strongest among participants in the WS group (r = 0.82, P ≤ 0.001), compared to the US (r = 0.63, P ≤ 0.001) and DS (r = 0.16, P = 0.324) groups. The DS (P ≤ 0.001) and US (P = 0.003), but not the WS (P = 0.891), groups showed evidence of reactivity. The results suggest that reactivity and tampering does occur in adolescents and contrary to existing research, pedometer monitoring protocols may influence participant behaviour.

Correlation and Wear-Time Compliance of the Wrist-Worn SQORD Activity Monitor Compared to the Actigraph 3TGX in Measuring Free-Living Physical Activity in Low SES Elementary Youth

“…Previous studies have also found this to be a challenge. As outlined earlier, Scott et al (2014) found low wear-time compliance among youth participants, particularly with waist-worn devices along with evidence of reactivity and device tampering. Another recent study found approximately 31% of boys and girls did not meet wear-time compliance when measuring physical activity using an arm-worn (worn on the upper arm/triceps area) accelerometer (Saint-Maurice, Kim, & Welk, 2017).…”

“…However, sensitivity analyses showed participants wearing the Actigraph accelerometer for 6 hours per day participated in daily MVPA significantly more than those who met the standard 10 hours per day criterion. In general, the objective measurement of MVPA among children and youth is a challenging endeavor, with studies suggesting that reactivity (change in normal behavior) and tampering influence the data (Scott, Morgan, Plotnikoff, Trost, & Lubans, 2014).…”

“…We attempted to address the challenge of low wear-time compliance by providing an incentive to those who met certain wear-time parameters. Other studies have provided incentives, such as Scott et al (2014) who provided gift bags to those who returned the pedometer. However, low wear-time compliance remained an issue in these studies.…”

Development and Implementation of a Smartphone Application to Promote Physical Activity and Reduce Screen-Time in Adolescent Boys

“…Although these strategies were employed in the ATLAS intervention, only 30% of participants wore their pedometers regularly. In a previous study, Scott and colleagues (45) found that many young people did not enjoy wearing objective monitoring devices such as pedometers and accelerometers and it is possible that participants in the current study were reluctant to wear the devices for self-monitoring purposes. While not feasible in the current study, apps that take advantage of a phone’s inbuilt accelerometer (e.g., “Moves”) may have more utility for promoting self-monitoring in young people.…”

The Intersect of Theory, Methods, and Translation in Guiding Interventions for the Promotion of Physical Activity: A Case Example of a Research Programme

“…Our research team has employed a range of strategies to improve compliance with accelerometer protocols, including: (a) providing participants with accelerometer logs and stickers reminding participants to wear their devices; (b) sending automated text messages to participants and their parents (for youth) each morning to remind them to wear their accelerometers; and (c) providing small incentives (e.g., sports socks, water bottles) for those who adhere to the protocols and return their accelerometers undamaged. The measurement of physical activity using pedometers presents additional challenges because unlike accelerometers, pedometers provide feedback to participants, which can result in reactivity (Scott, Plotnikoff, Lubans & Morgan, in press).…”