Assessment of Physical Activity with the Computer Science and Applications, Inc., Accelerometer: Laboratory versus Field Validation

Abstract Our purpose was to compare the validity of the Computer Science and Applications, (CSA) Inc., accelerometer in laboratory and field settings and establish CSA count ranges for light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity. Validity was determined in 60 adults during treadmill exercise, using oxygen consumption (VO2) as the criterion measure, while 30 adults walked and jogged outdoors on a 400-m track. The relationship between CSA counts and VO2 was linear (R2 = .89 SEE = 3.72 ml. kg1. min1), as was the relationship between velocity and counts in the field (R2 = .89, SEE = 0.89 mi. hr1). However, significant differences were found (p < .05) between laboratory and field measures of CSA counts for light and vigorous intensity. We conclude that the CSA can be used to quantify walking and jogging outdoors on level ground; however, laboratory equations may not be appropriate for use in field settings, particularly for light and vigorous activity.

[1]  Ronald E. LaPorte,et al.  Assessment of Walking Behavior: Effect of Speed and Monitor Position on Two Objective Physical Activity Monitors , 1988 .

[2]  P S Freedson,et al.  Comparison of activity levels using the Caltrac accelerometer and five questionnaires. , 1994, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

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

[4]  R. C. Nelson,et al.  Biomechanics of overground versus treadmill running. , 1972, Medicine and science in sports.

[5]  B C Elliott,et al.  A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. , 1976, Medicine and science in sports.

[6]  K. Janz Validation of the CSA accelerometer for assessing children's physical activity. , 1994, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  P. Freedson,et al.  Validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) activity monitor. , 1995, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[8]  R J Shephard,et al.  Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). , 1992, Canadian journal of sport sciences = Journal canadien des sciences du sport.

[9]  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 .

[10]  Elliott Bc,et al.  A cinematographic analysis of overground and treadmill running by males and females. , 1976 .

[11]  C B Corbin,et al.  The validity of the Tritrac-R3D Activity Monitor for the assessment of physical activity in children. , 1995, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[12]  J F Nichols,et al.  Validity, reliability, and calibration of the Tritrac accelerometer as a measure of physical activity. , 1999, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  J. Sallis,et al.  The Caltrac accelerometer as a physical activity monitor for school-age children. , 1990, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[14]  J. Webster,et al.  Estimation of energy expenditure by a portable accelerometer. , 1983, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[15]  T. Ganley,et al.  Exercise and Children's Health , 2000, The Physician and sportsmedicine.