Reliability of the Actigraph GT3X+ Accelerometer in Adults under Free-Living Conditions

Background Reliability of the Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer has not been determined under normal wear time criteria in a large sample of subjects and accelerometer units. The aim of this study was to assess contralateral hip difference and inter-instrument reliability of the Actigraph GT3X+ monitor in adults under long-term free-living conditions. Methods Eighty-seven adult subjects (28 men; mean (standard deviation) age 31.3 (12.2) years; body mass index 23.7 (3.1) kg/m2) concurrently wore two GT3X+ accelerometers (174 units in total) attached to contralateral hips for 21 days. Reliability was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, mixed model regression analyses and absolute measures of agreement for different lengths of data accumulation (single-day-, 7-day- and 21-day periods). Results There were no significant differences between contralateral hips (effect size ≤0.042; p ≥.213). Inter-instrument reliability increased with increased length of data-accumulation. For a 7-day measurement period (n = 232 weeks), limits of agreement were ±68 cpm (vertical axis) and ±81.3 cpm (vector magnitude) for overall physical activity (PA) level, ±51 min for sedentary time, ±18.2 min for light PA, ±6.3 min for moderate PA, ±3.5 min for vigorous PA, and ±6.7 min for moderate-to-vigorous PA. Conclusions The Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer is a reliable tool for measuring PA in adults under free-living conditions using normal data-reduction criteria. Contralateral hip differences are very small. We suggest accelerometers be attached to the right hip and data to be accumulated over several days of measurement.

[1]  Catrine Tudor-Locke,et al.  Actigraph accelerometer interinstrument reliability during free-living in adults. , 2007, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[2]  G. Welk,et al.  Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[3]  Mark S Tremblay,et al.  Technical reliability assessment of three accelerometer models in a mechanical setup. , 2006, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[4]  Dinesh John,et al.  ActiGraph and Actical physical activity monitors: a peek under the hood. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[5]  W G Hopkins,et al.  Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science , 2000, Sports medicine.

[6]  M. Hagströmer,et al.  Physical activity and inactivity in an adult population assessed by accelerometry. , 2007, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[7]  Leonard A Kaminsky,et al.  Intermonitor reliability of the GT3X+ accelerometer at hip, wrist and ankle sites during activities of daily living , 2014, Physiological measurement.

[8]  Jos W. R. Twisk,et al.  Applied multilevel analysis : a practical guide , 2006 .

[9]  Kelly R Evenson,et al.  Patterns of objectively measured physical activity in the United States. , 2008, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[10]  Mildred L. Patten,et al.  Measures of Reliability , 2017 .

[11]  S. Brage,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Computer Science and Applications Accelerometer in a Mechanical Setting , 2003 .

[12]  J. Curnow,et al.  Technical reliability of the CSA activity monitor: The EarlyBird Study. , 2002, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  Interinstrument Reliability of the ActiGraph GT3X+ Ambulatory Activity Monitor During Free-Living Conditions in Adults. , 2015, Journal of physical activity & health.

[14]  Comparative Interinstrument Reliability of Uniaxial and Triaxial Accelerometers in Free-Living Conditions , 2012, Perceptual and motor skills.

[15]  Alejandro Santos-Lozano,et al.  Technical variability of the GT3X accelerometer. , 2012, Medical engineering & physics.

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

[17]  A. Lucia,et al.  Intermonitor Variability of GT3X Accelerometer , 2012, International Journal of Sports Medicine.

[18]  G Atkinson,et al.  Statistical Methods For Assessing Measurement Error (Reliability) in Variables Relevant to Sports Medicine , 1998, Sports medicine.

[19]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[20]  J. Sirard,et al.  Accelerometer test-retest reliability by data processing algorithms: results from the Twin Cities Walking Study. , 2011, Journal of physical activity & health.

[21]  Ester Cerin,et al.  Individual calibration for estimating free-living walking speed using the MTI monitor. , 2006, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[22]  Stewart G Trost,et al.  Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. , 2005, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[23]  Kelly R Evenson,et al.  Accelerometer use in physical activity: best practices and research recommendations. , 2005, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[24]  Karsten Froberg,et al.  Unit-specific calibration of Actigraph accelerometers in a mechanical setup – Is it worth the effort? The effect on random output variation caused by technical inter-instrument variability in the laboratory and in the field , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[25]  L. Mâsse,et al.  Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. , 2008, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[26]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[27]  James A Hanley,et al.  Random measurement error and regression dilution bias , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  Joop J. Hox,et al.  Applied Multilevel Analysis. , 1995 .