The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs
Evidence for the reliability and validity of two models of Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. actigraphs was obtained by testing four instruments of each kind 10 times each on a precision pendulum. Correlation and coefficient of variation methods were used to analyze the data. Reliability coefficients of ....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Behavior research methods 2005-08, Vol.37 (3), p.492-497 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 497 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 492 |
| container_title | Behavior research methods |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | TRYON, Warren W |
| description | Evidence for the reliability and validity of two models of Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. actigraphs was obtained by testing four instruments of each kind 10 times each on a precision pendulum. Correlation and coefficient of variation methods were used to analyze the data. Reliability coefficients of .98 were obtained for both models. Coefficient of variation methods yielded reliability coefficients of 92% for the MotionLogger model and 97% for the BuzzBee model. Validity coefficients of.99 were obtained for both models. However, MotionLogger means were found to differ by up to 36% from one instrument to another, whereas BuzzBee means differed by 10% at most. Issues of standardization and measurement units were discussed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3758/BF03192719 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69067156</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>950267141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-72835f7a67c86e5c7d147bb1a92b357cdf804584b5d36971ff75cd4b9c373ff93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpd0FFLwzAQB_AgitPpix9AiqAPwjRpkiZ5nNOpMPFlgm8lTZMtI21m0ir79nasOBAOcoHfHccfgAsE7zCj_P5hCjESKUPiAJwgSskI05Qf_vXocwBOY1xBiHmKyDEYoIxAigg9AY_zpU6CdlYW1tlmk8i6TL6ls-X2403S_PhkXBWtk40Pm-TN17ZrbL1IpGrsIsj1Mp6BIyNd1Of9OwQf06f55GU0e39-nYxnI4UZb0Ys5ZgaJjOmeKapYiUirCiQFGmBKVOl4ZBQTgpa4kwwZAyjqiSF6MaxMQIPwc1u7zr4r1bHJq9sVNo5WWvfxjwTMGOIZh28-gdXvg11d1ueQoK74qhDtzukgo8xaJOvg61k2OQI5ttg832wHb7sN7ZFpcs97ZPswHUPZFTSmSBrZePeMUxFijj-BZXjfo0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>204304381</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>TRYON, Warren W</creator><creatorcontrib>TRYON, Warren W</creatorcontrib><description>Evidence for the reliability and validity of two models of Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. actigraphs was obtained by testing four instruments of each kind 10 times each on a precision pendulum. Correlation and coefficient of variation methods were used to analyze the data. Reliability coefficients of .98 were obtained for both models. Coefficient of variation methods yielded reliability coefficients of 92% for the MotionLogger model and 97% for the BuzzBee model. Validity coefficients of.99 were obtained for both models. However, MotionLogger means were found to differ by up to 36% from one instrument to another, whereas BuzzBee means differed by 10% at most. Issues of standardization and measurement units were discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1554-351X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1554-3528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/BF03192719</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16405145</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Austin, TX: Psychonomic Society</publisher><subject>Behavior modification ; Behavioral psychophysiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Equipment Design ; Errors ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; Methodology. Experimentation ; Methods ; Monitoring systems ; Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation ; Monitoring, Ambulatory - statistics & numerical data ; Movement ; Psychology ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Testing</subject><ispartof>Behavior research methods, 2005-08, Vol.37 (3), p.492-497</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Psychonomic Society, Inc. Aug 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-72835f7a67c86e5c7d147bb1a92b357cdf804584b5d36971ff75cd4b9c373ff93</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-72835f7a67c86e5c7d147bb1a92b357cdf804584b5d36971ff75cd4b9c373ff93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17359218$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16405145$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>TRYON, Warren W</creatorcontrib><title>The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs</title><title>Behavior research methods</title><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><description>Evidence for the reliability and validity of two models of Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. actigraphs was obtained by testing four instruments of each kind 10 times each on a precision pendulum. Correlation and coefficient of variation methods were used to analyze the data. Reliability coefficients of .98 were obtained for both models. Coefficient of variation methods yielded reliability coefficients of 92% for the MotionLogger model and 97% for the BuzzBee model. Validity coefficients of.99 were obtained for both models. However, MotionLogger means were found to differ by up to 36% from one instrument to another, whereas BuzzBee means differed by 10% at most. Issues of standardization and measurement units were discussed.</description><subject>Behavior modification</subject><subject>Behavioral psychophysiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Methodology. Experimentation</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Monitoring systems</subject><subject>Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation</subject><subject>Monitoring, Ambulatory - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Movement</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Testing</subject><issn>1554-351X</issn><issn>1554-3528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpd0FFLwzAQB_AgitPpix9AiqAPwjRpkiZ5nNOpMPFlgm8lTZMtI21m0ir79nasOBAOcoHfHccfgAsE7zCj_P5hCjESKUPiAJwgSskI05Qf_vXocwBOY1xBiHmKyDEYoIxAigg9AY_zpU6CdlYW1tlmk8i6TL6ls-X2403S_PhkXBWtk40Pm-TN17ZrbL1IpGrsIsj1Mp6BIyNd1Of9OwQf06f55GU0e39-nYxnI4UZb0Ys5ZgaJjOmeKapYiUirCiQFGmBKVOl4ZBQTgpa4kwwZAyjqiSF6MaxMQIPwc1u7zr4r1bHJq9sVNo5WWvfxjwTMGOIZh28-gdXvg11d1ueQoK74qhDtzukgo8xaJOvg61k2OQI5ttg832wHb7sN7ZFpcs97ZPswHUPZFTSmSBrZePeMUxFijj-BZXjfo0</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>TRYON, Warren W</creator><general>Psychonomic Society</general><general>Psychonomic Society, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs</title><author>TRYON, Warren W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c378t-72835f7a67c86e5c7d147bb1a92b357cdf804584b5d36971ff75cd4b9c373ff93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Behavior modification</topic><topic>Behavioral psychophysiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Methodology. Experimentation</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Monitoring systems</topic><topic>Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation</topic><topic>Monitoring, Ambulatory - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Movement</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Testing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>TRYON, Warren W</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Behavior research methods</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>TRYON, Warren W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs</atitle><jtitle>Behavior research methods</jtitle><addtitle>Behav Res Methods</addtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>492</spage><epage>497</epage><pages>492-497</pages><issn>1554-351X</issn><eissn>1554-3528</eissn><abstract>Evidence for the reliability and validity of two models of Ambulatory Monitoring, Inc. actigraphs was obtained by testing four instruments of each kind 10 times each on a precision pendulum. Correlation and coefficient of variation methods were used to analyze the data. Reliability coefficients of .98 were obtained for both models. Coefficient of variation methods yielded reliability coefficients of 92% for the MotionLogger model and 97% for the BuzzBee model. Validity coefficients of.99 were obtained for both models. However, MotionLogger means were found to differ by up to 36% from one instrument to another, whereas BuzzBee means differed by 10% at most. Issues of standardization and measurement units were discussed.</abstract><cop>Austin, TX</cop><pub>Psychonomic Society</pub><pmid>16405145</pmid><doi>10.3758/BF03192719</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1554-351X |
| ispartof | Behavior research methods, 2005-08, Vol.37 (3), p.492-497 |
| issn | 1554-351X 1554-3528 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69067156 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Behavior modification Behavioral psychophysiology Biological and medical sciences Equipment Design Errors Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans Methodology. Experimentation Methods Monitoring systems Monitoring, Ambulatory - instrumentation Monitoring, Ambulatory - statistics & numerical data Movement Psychology Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Psychometrics. Statistics. Methodology Reproducibility of Results Testing |
| title | The reliability and validity of two Ambulatory Monitoring actigraphs |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T18%3A25%3A51IST&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=The%20reliability%20and%20validity%20of%20two%20Ambulatory%20Monitoring%20actigraphs&rft.jtitle=Behavior%20research%20methods&rft.au=TRYON,%20Warren%20W&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=492&rft.epage=497&rft.pages=492-497&rft.issn=1554-351X&rft.eissn=1554-3528&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/BF03192719&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E950267141%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=204304381&rft_id=info:pmid/16405145&rfr_iscdi=true |