Validity of smartphone pedometer applications

Abstract

Background Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer).ParticipantsConvenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)].MethodsFive conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures.ResultsAnalyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer.ConclusionsGiven the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

“…The accelerometer apps used in this study only differed slightly in their accuracy of step detection and generally demonstrated good validity for all treadmill conditions and a slight underestimation of steps during free walking. The validity of the apps Accupedo and Runtastic Pedometer has been investigated before 39 but has been found to be distinctly poorer than in our study. It is possible that the choice of smartphones influenced the result as all apps access the phone's built-in accelerometer and its algorithms for step assessment.…”

“…It is possible that the choice of smartphones influenced the result as all apps access the phone's built‐in accelerometer and its algorithms for step assessment. While Orr et al used the iPhone 4s and 5, both without motion coprocessor, we chose to use the iPhone SE that includes the newest version of Apple's motion coprocessor (M9). The good validity of the predecessor version of this motion coprocessor (M7) has been previously shown for different walking speeds on a 30‐m straight‐line path …”

Validation of smartphone step count algorithm used in STARFISH smartphone application

“…As smartphone step counting applications use the tri-axial accelerometer within the device the accuracy of these varies but also become worse at lower speeds [22]. Our results were in line with this as the LOA became stronger with the slightly faster speeds.…”

Validity of Mobile-Based Technology vs Direct Observation in Measuring Number of Steps and Distance Walked in 6 Minutes

“…1,2 In addition, fitness trackers (Fitbit) are commonly used to monitor and promote PA. However, many of these apps and trackers appear to underestimate steps walked and create a greater margin of error for most forms of PA. 3,4 The Fitbit has shown good agreement with other devices and between other models of Fitbit for steps walked. 5,6 However, there is limited literature on the accuracy of assessing distance covered.…”