Is There A Valid App For That? Validity Of A Free iphone Pedometer Application

Bergman, Randall J.; Spellman, Justin W.; Hall, Michael E.

doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000401929.74332.20

Cited by 10 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An overall moderate to strong correlation has been reported for various activities of daily life between accelerometers (ActiGraph GT3X+) and Android smartphones as well as for step counts at fast walking speeds (1.8 m/s) between Apple's iPhone 5S and video‐based manual post hoc step counting . Several studies assessing the validity of smartphones placed the phone in the participants pants pocket . While this may be the preferred position to carry a smartphone for men, women often times do not carry their smartphone in their pants pocket, but rather in a purse or backpack .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17 Several studies assessing the validity of smartphones placed the phone in the participants pants pocket. 9,[17][18][19][20] While this may be the preferred position to carry a smartphone for men, women often times do not carry their smartphone in their pants pocket, but rather in a purse or backpack. 21 To the authors' knowledge, no research has been conducted investigating the difference in accuracy of smartphone-measured step counts when carrying the smartphone in a purse or backpack compared to the front pocket of the pants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions

Höchsmann

Knaier

Eymann

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the validity of popular smartphone accelerometer applications and a consumer activity wristband compared to a widely used research accelerometer while assessing the impact of the phone's position on the accuracy of step detection. Twenty volunteers from 2 different age groups (Group A: 18-25 years, n = 10; Group B 45-70 years, n = 10) were equipped with 3 iPhone SE smartphones (placed in pants pocket, shoulder bag, and backpack), 1 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge (pants pocket), 1 Garmin Vivofit 2 wristband, and 2 ActiGraph wGTX+ devices (worn at wrist and hip) while walking on a treadmill (1.6, 3.2, 4.8, and 6.0 km/h) and completing a walking course. All smartphones included 6 accelerometer applications. Video observation was used as gold standard. Validity was evaluated by comparing each device with the gold standard using mean absolute percentage errors (MAPE). The MAPE of the iPhone SE (all positions) and the Garmin Vivofit was small (<3) for treadmill walking ≥3.2 km/h and for free walking. The Samsung Galaxy and hip-worn ActiGraph showed small MAPE only for treadmill walking at 4.8 and 6.0 km/h and for free walking. The wrist-worn ActiGraph showed high MAPE (17-47) for all walking conditions. The iPhone SE and the Garmin Vivofit 2 are accurate tools for step counting in different age groups and during various walking conditions, even during slow walking. The phone's position does not impact the accuracy of step detection, which substantially improves the versatility for physical activity assessment in clinical and research settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions

Höchsmann

Knaier

Eymann

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Boyce, Padmasekara and Blum 19 compared three pedometer iOS applications (iSteps Lite, Pedometer Lite and Lyr Free) with a conventional Yamax pedometer and found that they were inaccurate in step count and speed estimate at varying intensities of activity. Lastly, Bergman, Spellman, Hall and Bergman 20 compared an iOS application (iPedometer) with a StepWatch 3 and direct observation and found similar results regarding the inaccuracy of the application, concluding that this is not a valid instrument for monitoring activity. Till nowadays, little evidence exist regarding the validity of Android physical activity applications and, as Bort-Roig and colleagues, 17 stated, 'well designed studies are needed that comprehensively assess physical activity measurement accuracy'.…”

Section: á16mentioning

confidence: 95%

Preliminary Validation Study of Consumer-level Activity Monitors and Mobile Applications for Step Counting under Free Living Conditions

Adamakis¹

2017

JournalMTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The last decade's technological advances have spurred a continuously increasing interest in objective monitoring of physical activity with the use of wearable devices. Even though an increased accuracy is important in some lines of research, a balance between precision, feasibility and low-cost monitoring technologies is clearly needed.Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy for step counting between one springlevered pedometer, two piezo-electric pedometers and two free of charge pedometer applications for Android smartphones, under free-living conditions.Methods: Eleven healthy adults, ranging in BMI from 20.20 to 24.77 kg*m (2 , volunteered to participate in the study. They wore the selected criterion pedometer Yamax SW-200 (SW), which is considered the ''gold standard'', the Garmin Vivofit (GV), Medisana ViFit (MV), Accupedo application (AC) and Pedometer 2.0 application (PD), for a 24-h period, under free-living settings. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.Results: All devices and applications demonstrated strong correlations with the SW reference pedometer (IC 0 0.86 Á 0.94), but often large mean differences Significant differences were observed among the five pedometers (F 0 5.21, p 0 0.01). Only the PD counted almost similar steps as the SW (F 0 0.57, p 0 0.47), even though it had high Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE). The 3 remaining pedometers significantly overestimated counted steps, with the AC application been the least accurate [F 0 11.92, p B 0.01; MAPE 0 36.15%]. Conclusions:The results of the present study showed favorable outcomes for the estimation of steps per day for the PD application in healthy and normal weight people. The two piezo-electric pedometers (GV -MV) appeared to give similar values, however these values constantly overestimated step counting compared with the criterion pedometer. Taking into account the free cost and feasibility of the PD application, the results demonstrate good potential for future use in free-living settings.

show abstract

“…According to Bort-Roig and colleagues, [15] using a smartphone to assess physical activity is relatively new phenomenon and their review identified only a few studies that considered the validity of these measurements. Bergman et al [16] concluded that an iPhone pedometer application was not valid during treadmill walking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of the validity and reliability of a smartphone pedometer application

Åkerberg¹,

Söderlund

Lindén³

2016

European Journal of Physiotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and measurement agreement of a smartphone pedometer application and a traditional pedometer, both compared to manual step count, in six environments. The study also examined the relative reliability of two positions of the smartphone pedometer application in the six environments. Twenty participants carried two smartphones (iPhone 4S) with the same pedometer application (Pedometer FREE GPSþ) in two device positions together with a traditional pedometer (Yamax LS2000) while walking in six environments. The pedometer application in the chest position (app chest) differed significantly from the manual step count when walking uphill (p ¼ 0.003), the application in the trouser (pants) position (app pants) differed for downhill (p ¼ 0.001) and the traditional pedometer (trad ped) differed upstairs (p ¼ 0.007). The measurement agreement was high for app pants uphill, app chest downhill and trad ped downstairs. The relative reliability was fair for app chest, but poor for app pants. In conclusion, the pedometer application and traditional pedometer were valid for step self-monitoring in some environments, and the measurement agreement compared to manual step count was mainly medium to high. The relative reliability for the smartphone pedometer application was partly acceptable. Smartphones could be useful in some environments for physical activity self-monitoring. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Is There A Valid App For That? Validity Of A Free iphone Pedometer Application

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions

Validity of activity trackers, smartphones, and phone applications to measure steps in various walking conditions

Preliminary Validation Study of Consumer-level Activity Monitors and Mobile Applications for Step Counting under Free Living Conditions

Investigation of the validity and reliability of a smartphone pedometer application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About