Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of free-living physical activity.

PURPOSE The purpose of this investigation was 1) to evaluate agreement between dual-mode CSA accelerometer outputs and Yamax pedometer outputs assessed concurrently under free-living conditions; 2) to determine the relationship between pedometer-steps per day and CSA-time spent in inactivity and in light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity activities; and 3) to identify a value of pedometer-steps per day that corresponds with a minimum of 30 CSA-min x d(-1) of moderate ambulatory activity. METHODS Data were analyzed from 52 participants (27 men, 25 women; mean age = 38.2 +/- 12.0 yr; mean BMI = 26.4 +/- 4.5 kg x m(-2)) who were enrolled in the International Physical Activity Questionnaire study and wore both motion sensors during waking hours for 7 consecutive days. RESULTS Participants averaged 415.0+/-159.5 CSA-counts x min(-1) x d(-1), 357,601 +/- 138,425 CSA-counts x d(-1), 11,483 +/- 3,856 CSA-steps x d(-1), and 9,638 +/- 4,030 pedometer-steps x d(-1). There was a strong relationship between all CSA outputs and pedometer outputs (r = 0.74-0.86). The mean difference in steps detected between instruments was 1845+/-2116 steps x d(-1) (CSA > pedometer; t = 6.29, P < 0.0001). There were distinct differences (effect sizes >0.80) in mean CSA-time (min x d(-1)) in moderate and vigorous activity with increasing pedometer-determined activity quartiles; no differences were noted for inactivity or light activity. Approximately 33 CSA-min x d(-1) of moderate activity corresponded with 8000 pedometer-steps x d(-1). CONCLUSION Differences in mean steps per day detected may be due to differences in set instrument sensitivity thresholds and/or attachment. Additional studies with different populations are needed to confirm a recommended number of steps per day associated with the duration and intensity of public health recommendations for ambulatory activity.

[1]  H. Nagaraja,et al.  Comparisons of four methods of estimating physical activity in adult women. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[2]  C. Tudor-Locke,et al.  Challenges and Opportunities for Measuring Physical Activity in Sedentary Adults , 2001, Sports medicine.

[3]  P S Freedson,et al.  Comparing physical activity assessment methods in the Seasonal Variation of Blood Cholesterol Study. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[4]  J. R. Thomas,et al.  What is missing in p less than .05? Effect size. , 1991, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.

[5]  Warren W. Tryon,et al.  Reliability assessment of pedometer activity measurements , 1991 .

[6]  P S Freedson,et al.  Field evaluation of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. physical activity monitor. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  K. Patrick,et al.  Physical Activity and Public Health: A Recommendation From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine , 1995 .

[8]  P S Freedson,et al.  Seasonal variation in household, occupational, and leisure time physical activity: longitudinal analyses from the seasonal variation of blood cholesterol study. , 2001, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  Barbara E. Ainsworth,et al.  Accuracy of five electronic pedometers for measuring distance walked. , 1996, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  P S Freedson,et al.  Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. , 1998, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[11]  Anita M. Myers,et al.  Methodological Considerations for Researchers and Practitioners Using Pedometers to Measure Physical (Ambulatory) Activity , 2001, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[12]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[13]  D R Bassett,et al.  Validity and Reliability issues in Objective Monitoring of Physical Activity , 2015 .