Validity of actigraphs uniaxial and triaxial accelerometers for assessment of physical activity in adults in laboratory conditions

Abstract

BackgroundFew studies to date have directly compared the Actigraphs GT1M and the GT3X, it would be of tremendous value to know if these accelerometers give similar information about intensities of PA. Knowing if output is similar would have implications for cross-examination of studies. The purpose of the study was to assess the validity of the GT1M and the GT3X Actigraph accelerometers for the assessment of physical activity against oxygen consumption in laboratory conditions.MethodsForty-two college-aged participants aged 18-25 years wore the GT1M and the GT3X on their right hip during treadmill exercise at three different speeds, slow walking 4.8 km.h-1, fast walking 6.4 km.h-1, and running 9.7 km.h-1). Oxygen consumption was measured minute-by minute using a metabolic system. Bland-Altman plots were used to assess agreement between activity counts from the GT3X and GT1M, and correlations were assessed the ability of the accelerometers to assess physical activity.ResultsBias for 4.8 km.h-1 was 2814.4 cpm (limits 1211.3 to 4417.4), for 6.4 km.h-1 was 3713.6 cpm (limits 1573.2 to 5854.0), and for 9.7 km.h-1 was−3811.2 cpm (limits 842.1 to 6780.3). Correlations between counts per minute for the GT1M and the GT3X were significantly correlated with VO2 (r = 0.881, p < 0.001; r = 0.810, p < 0.001 respectively).ConclusionThe present study showed that both the GT1M and the GT3X accurately measure physical activity when compared to oxygen consumption.

Prediction of objectively measured physical activity and sedentariness among blue-collar work using survey questionnaires

“…Systematic and random measurement errors may lead to misleading results, both when documenting time spent sedentary and in physical activity and when determining associations with relevant outcomes such as health and well-being. As an alternative, objective measurements using accelerometers offer accurate information of time spent sedentary and in physical activity (18,19). Thus, accelerometer recordings have been used as the gold standard for validating questionnaire-based data on time spent sedentary and in physical activity (20,21).…”

Construct Validity of the Spanish Version of the CHAMPS Questionnaire for institutionalized patients over 65 years old

“…The criterion validity of the CHAMPS questionnaire to estimate the amount of PA performed was contrasted with the help of the accelerometer ActiGraph GT3X (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA), an instrument that has been considered appropriate for these purposes 16 . In the present study, accelerations were registered with a sample frequency of 100 Hz and then filtered, digitalized, and compiled in periods of 60 seconds.…”

Impact of Activity Monitors on Quantification of Physical Activity - A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

“…Similarly, Kozey-Keadle et al [33] also concluded that while measuring activities related to sedentary life style behavior the researchers should prefer activPAL as it was more sensitive and reliable in quantifying the physical activities during sedentary life style. Kelly et al identified the validity of two different generations of ActiGraph (Uni and Triaxial) and concluded that both generations of ActiGraph had accuracy of 88.11% when compared to oxygen consumption (laboratory based standard protocol [31]. Kelly conducted a study on young adult participants and employed two generations of actiGraph for measuring a physical activity [31].…”

“…Kelly et al identified the validity of two different generations of ActiGraph (Uni and Triaxial) and concluded that both generations of ActiGraph had accuracy of 88.11% when compared to oxygen consumption (laboratory based standard protocol [31]. Kelly conducted a study on young adult participants and employed two generations of actiGraph for measuring a physical activity [31]. An interesting study to determine the optimal placement of accelerometers in determining the Physical Activities was performed by Cleland et al in 2013, according to Ian Cleland study hip worn accelerometers had highest performance index in measuring physical activity 0.978 followed by thigh worn accelerometers 0.971 [26].…”

“…Majority of studies used mixed gender population (n=14), 1 study targeted only males and 1 of females. Most of the studies included participants aged between 18-60 years (n=10) [16], [17], [21], [23], [26], [31], [32], [33], [25], [28] while five studies included participants older than 60 years of age [22], [23], [24], [27], [30] For both qualitative and quantitative analysis seven studies usedactivPAL [9], [17], [22], [24], [25], [29], [33] as an assessment measure of PA whereas eight studies used actigraph [9], [16], [17], [21], [22], [25], [27], [29]. Studies also used step watch [21], AMP 331 [30], mobile phone technology [32] CosMed Kb42 [29], IPAQ [23] and LAPAQ [24] respectively Figure 2 shows the risk of bias in terms of percentages in the studies…”