Conducting Accelerometer-Based Activity Assessments in Field-Based Research

PURPOSE:The purpose of this review is to address important methodological issues related to conducting accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity in free-living individuals. METHODS:We review the extant scientific literature for empirical information related to the following issuesproduct...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2005-11, Vol.37 (11 Suppl), p.S531-S543
Hauptverfasser: TROST, STEWART G, MCIVER, KERRY L, PATE, RUSSELL R
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:PURPOSE:The purpose of this review is to address important methodological issues related to conducting accelerometer-based assessments of physical activity in free-living individuals. METHODS:We review the extant scientific literature for empirical information related to the following issuesproduct selection, number of accelerometers needed, placement of accelerometers, epoch length, and days of monitoring required to estimate habitual physical activity. We also discuss the various options related to distributing and collecting monitors and strategies to enhance compliance with the monitoring protocol. RESULTS:No definitive evidence exists currently to indicate that one make and model of accelerometer is more valid and reliable than another. Selection of accelerometer therefore remains primarily an issue of practicality, technical support, and comparability with other studies. Studies employing multiple accelerometers to estimate energy expenditure report only marginal improvements in explanatory power. Accelerometers are best placed on hip or the lower back. Although the issue of epoch length has not been studied in adults, the use of count cut points based on 1-min time intervals maybe inappropriate in children and may result in underestimation of physical activity. Among adults, 3–5 d of monitoring is required to reliably estimate habitual physical activity. Among children and adolescents, the number of monitoring days required ranges from 4 to 9 d, making it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion for this population. Face-to-face distribution and collection of accelerometers is probably the best option in field-based research, but delivery and return by express carrier or registered mail is a viable option. CONCLUSION:Accelerometer-based activity assessments requires careful planning and the use of appropriate strategies to increase compliance.
ISSN:0195-9131
1530-0315
DOI:10.1249/01.mss.0000185657.86065.98