Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions

Purpose: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Rochester, Minnesota. Participa...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of health promotion 2018-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1671-1678
Hauptverfasser: Gaz, Daniel V., Rieck, Thomas M., Peterson, Nolan W., Ferguson, Jennifer A., Schroeder, Darrell R., Dunfee, Heather A., Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M., Hagen, Philip T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1678
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1671
container_title American journal of health promotion
container_volume 32
creator Gaz, Daniel V.
Rieck, Thomas M.
Peterson, Nolan W.
Ferguson, Jennifer A.
Schroeder, Darrell R.
Dunfee, Heather A.
Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M.
Hagen, Philip T.
description Purpose: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Rochester, Minnesota. Participants: Thirty-two men (n = 10) and women (n = 22) participated in the study. Measures: Researchers manually counted steps and measured distance for all trials, while participants wore 6 activity tracking devices that measured steps and distance. Analysis: We computed the difference between the number of steps measured by the device and the actual number of steps recorded by the observers, as well as the distance displayed by the device and the actual distance measured. Results: The analyses showed that both the device and walking trials affected the accuracy of the results (steps or distance, P < .001). Hip-based devices were more accurate and consistent for measuring step count. No significant differences were found among devices or locations for the distance measured. Conclusions: Hip-based activity tracking devices varied in accuracy but performed better than their wrist-based counterparts for step accuracy. Distance measurements for both types of devices were more consistent but lacked accuracy.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0890117118763273
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2016536159</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0890117118763273</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2124810372</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-1ae90d227b73ae46f59a6137ae0e1f2bc65d43d8898870f414aed91001c4eb923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUtPxCAURonR6PjYuzJN3LipcqEFujQzvhKNm1GXDUNvFWXaEVqT-fdSZ9TExBWE73wHyCXkEOgpgJRnVBU0bgCUFJxJvkFGDIRKhaBsk4yGOB3yHbIbwiulLAdKt8kOK_JcKYAR6SfYoZ_bxjbPSfeCyaN2trLdMtFNlZwb03ttlklbJ3e96-zCYTzs7Eck0mmM3obeBD-swZDYJhm3Tedb57D6Elx6xPRJuy8sZtFs2ybsk61au4AH63WPPFxeTMfX6e391c34_DY1XORdChoLWjEmZ5JrzESdF1oAlxopQs1mRuRVxiulCqUkrTPINFZF_CKYDGcF43vkZOVd-Pa9x9CVcxsMOqcbbPtQMgoi5wLyIqLHf9DXtvdNfF3JgGUKKJeDkK4o49sQPNblwtu59ssSaDmMpPw7klg5Wov72Ryrn8L3DCKQroCgn_H31n-Fnw8tktE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2124810372</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Gaz, Daniel V. ; Rieck, Thomas M. ; Peterson, Nolan W. ; Ferguson, Jennifer A. ; Schroeder, Darrell R. ; Dunfee, Heather A. ; Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M. ; Hagen, Philip T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gaz, Daniel V. ; Rieck, Thomas M. ; Peterson, Nolan W. ; Ferguson, Jennifer A. ; Schroeder, Darrell R. ; Dunfee, Heather A. ; Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M. ; Hagen, Philip T.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Rochester, Minnesota. Participants: Thirty-two men (n = 10) and women (n = 22) participated in the study. Measures: Researchers manually counted steps and measured distance for all trials, while participants wore 6 activity tracking devices that measured steps and distance. Analysis: We computed the difference between the number of steps measured by the device and the actual number of steps recorded by the observers, as well as the distance displayed by the device and the actual distance measured. Results: The analyses showed that both the device and walking trials affected the accuracy of the results (steps or distance, P &lt; .001). Hip-based devices were more accurate and consistent for measuring step count. No significant differences were found among devices or locations for the distance measured. Conclusions: Hip-based activity tracking devices varied in accuracy but performed better than their wrist-based counterparts for step accuracy. Distance measurements for both types of devices were more consistent but lacked accuracy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0890-1171</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2168-6602</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0890117118763273</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29558811</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Accelerometers ; Accuracy ; Comparative studies ; Health promotion ; Tracking ; Walking</subject><ispartof>American journal of health promotion, 2018-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1671-1678</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-1ae90d227b73ae46f59a6137ae0e1f2bc65d43d8898870f414aed91001c4eb923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-1ae90d227b73ae46f59a6137ae0e1f2bc65d43d8898870f414aed91001c4eb923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0890117118763273$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0890117118763273$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21799,27903,27904,30978,43600,43601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29558811$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gaz, Daniel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rieck, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, Nolan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, Jennifer A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Darrell R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunfee, Heather A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hagen, Philip T.</creatorcontrib><title>Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions</title><title>American journal of health promotion</title><addtitle>Am J Health Promot</addtitle><description>Purpose: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Rochester, Minnesota. Participants: Thirty-two men (n = 10) and women (n = 22) participated in the study. Measures: Researchers manually counted steps and measured distance for all trials, while participants wore 6 activity tracking devices that measured steps and distance. Analysis: We computed the difference between the number of steps measured by the device and the actual number of steps recorded by the observers, as well as the distance displayed by the device and the actual distance measured. Results: The analyses showed that both the device and walking trials affected the accuracy of the results (steps or distance, P &lt; .001). Hip-based devices were more accurate and consistent for measuring step count. No significant differences were found among devices or locations for the distance measured. Conclusions: Hip-based activity tracking devices varied in accuracy but performed better than their wrist-based counterparts for step accuracy. Distance measurements for both types of devices were more consistent but lacked accuracy.</description><subject>Accelerometers</subject><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>Walking</subject><issn>0890-1171</issn><issn>2168-6602</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUtPxCAURonR6PjYuzJN3LipcqEFujQzvhKNm1GXDUNvFWXaEVqT-fdSZ9TExBWE73wHyCXkEOgpgJRnVBU0bgCUFJxJvkFGDIRKhaBsk4yGOB3yHbIbwiulLAdKt8kOK_JcKYAR6SfYoZ_bxjbPSfeCyaN2trLdMtFNlZwb03ttlklbJ3e96-zCYTzs7Eck0mmM3obeBD-swZDYJhm3Tedb57D6Elx6xPRJuy8sZtFs2ybsk61au4AH63WPPFxeTMfX6e391c34_DY1XORdChoLWjEmZ5JrzESdF1oAlxopQs1mRuRVxiulCqUkrTPINFZF_CKYDGcF43vkZOVd-Pa9x9CVcxsMOqcbbPtQMgoi5wLyIqLHf9DXtvdNfF3JgGUKKJeDkK4o49sQPNblwtu59ssSaDmMpPw7klg5Wov72Ryrn8L3DCKQroCgn_H31n-Fnw8tktE</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Gaz, Daniel V.</creator><creator>Rieck, Thomas M.</creator><creator>Peterson, Nolan W.</creator><creator>Ferguson, Jennifer A.</creator><creator>Schroeder, Darrell R.</creator><creator>Dunfee, Heather A.</creator><creator>Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M.</creator><creator>Hagen, Philip T.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>American Journal of Health Promotion</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions</title><author>Gaz, Daniel V. ; Rieck, Thomas M. ; Peterson, Nolan W. ; Ferguson, Jennifer A. ; Schroeder, Darrell R. ; Dunfee, Heather A. ; Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M. ; Hagen, Philip T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-1ae90d227b73ae46f59a6137ae0e1f2bc65d43d8898870f414aed91001c4eb923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accelerometers</topic><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>Walking</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gaz, Daniel V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rieck, Thomas M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, Nolan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferguson, Jennifer A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schroeder, Darrell R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunfee, Heather A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hagen, Philip T.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of health promotion</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gaz, Daniel V.</au><au>Rieck, Thomas M.</au><au>Peterson, Nolan W.</au><au>Ferguson, Jennifer A.</au><au>Schroeder, Darrell R.</au><au>Dunfee, Heather A.</au><au>Henderzahs-Mason, Jill M.</au><au>Hagen, Philip T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions</atitle><jtitle>American journal of health promotion</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Health Promot</addtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1671</spage><epage>1678</epage><pages>1671-1678</pages><issn>0890-1171</issn><eissn>2168-6602</eissn><abstract>Purpose: Clinicians and fitness professionals are increasingly recommending the use of activity trackers. This study compares commercially available activity tracking devices for step and distance accuracy in common exercise settings. Design: Cross sectional. Setting: Rochester, Minnesota. Participants: Thirty-two men (n = 10) and women (n = 22) participated in the study. Measures: Researchers manually counted steps and measured distance for all trials, while participants wore 6 activity tracking devices that measured steps and distance. Analysis: We computed the difference between the number of steps measured by the device and the actual number of steps recorded by the observers, as well as the distance displayed by the device and the actual distance measured. Results: The analyses showed that both the device and walking trials affected the accuracy of the results (steps or distance, P &lt; .001). Hip-based devices were more accurate and consistent for measuring step count. No significant differences were found among devices or locations for the distance measured. Conclusions: Hip-based activity tracking devices varied in accuracy but performed better than their wrist-based counterparts for step accuracy. Distance measurements for both types of devices were more consistent but lacked accuracy.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>29558811</pmid><doi>10.1177/0890117118763273</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0890-1171
ispartof American journal of health promotion, 2018-11, Vol.32 (8), p.1671-1678
issn 0890-1171
2168-6602
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2016536159
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Accelerometers
Accuracy
Comparative studies
Health promotion
Tracking
Walking
title Determining the Validity and Accuracy of Multiple Activity-Tracking Devices in Controlled and Free-Walking Conditions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T20%3A34%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Determining%20the%20Validity%20and%20Accuracy%20of%20Multiple%20Activity-Tracking%20Devices%20in%20Controlled%20and%20Free-Walking%20Conditions&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20health%20promotion&rft.au=Gaz,%20Daniel%20V.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1671&rft.epage=1678&rft.pages=1671-1678&rft.issn=0890-1171&rft.eissn=2168-6602&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0890117118763273&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2124810372%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2124810372&rft_id=info:pmid/29558811&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0890117118763273&rfr_iscdi=true