A Validation Study of the Fitbit One in Daily Life Using Different Time Intervals

Purpose Accelerometer-based wearables can provide the user with real-time feedback through the device's interface and the mobile platforms. Few studies have focused on the minute-by-minute validity of wearables, which is essential for high-quality real-time feedback. This study aims to assess the validity of the Fitbit One compared with the ActiGraph GT3x + for assessing physical activity (i.e., steps, time spent in moderate, vigorous, and moderate–vigorous physical activity) in young adults using traditional time intervals (i.e., days) and smaller time intervals (i.e., minutes and hours). Methods Healthy young adults (N = 34) wore the ActiGraph GT3x+ and a Fitbit One for 1 wk. Three aggregation levels were used: minute, hour, and day. Mixed models analyses, intraclass correlation coefficients, Bland–Altman analyses, and absolute error percentage for steps per day were conducted to analyze the validity for steps and minutes spent in moderate, vigorous, and moderate–vigorous physical activity. Results As compared with ActiGraph (mean = 9 steps per minute, 509 steps per hour and 7636 steps per day), the Fitbit One systematically overestimated physical activity for all aggregation levels: on average 0.82 steps per minute, 45 steps per hour, and 677 steps per day. Strong and significant associations were found between ActiGraph and Fitbit results for steps taken (B = 0.72–0.89). Weaker but statistically significant associations were found for minutes spent in moderate, vigorous, and moderate–vigorous physical activity for all time intervals (B = 0.39–0.57). Conclusions Although the Fitbit One overestimates the step activity compared with the ActiGraph, it can be considered a valid device to assess step activity, including for real-time minute-by-minute self-monitoring. However, agreement and correlation between ActiGraph and Fitbit One regarding time spent in moderate, vigorous, and moderate–vigorous physical activity were lower.

[1]  Bernard F Fuemmeler,et al.  Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. , 2005, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[2]  Molly Zellweger Mackinlay Phases of Accuracy Diagnosis: (In)visibility of System Status in the Fitbit , 2013 .

[3]  J. Takács,et al.  Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking. , 2014, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[4]  R. Furberg,et al.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[5]  U. Ekelund,et al.  Energy Expenditure Compared to Physical Activity Measured by Accelerometry and Self-Report in Adolescents: A Validation Study , 2013, PloS one.

[6]  P. Siemonsma,et al.  Validity and Usability of Low-Cost Accelerometers for Internet-Based Self-Monitoring of Physical Activity in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease , 2014, Interactive journal of medical research.

[7]  Matthew P Buman,et al.  Twenty-four Hours of Sleep, Sedentary Behavior, and Physical Activity with Nine Wearable Devices. , 2016, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[8]  H. P. van der Ploeg,et al.  A tool for measuring workers' sitting time by domain: the Workforce Sitting Questionnaire , 2011, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[9]  W. Brown,et al.  Estimating Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in a Free-Living Context: A Pragmatic Comparison of Consumer-Based Activity Trackers and ActiGraph Accelerometry , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[10]  Bruce K Armstrong,et al.  International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity Validity and Repeatability of the Epic Physical Activity Questionnaire: a Validation Study Using Accelerometers as an Objective Measure , 2007 .

[11]  Ulf Ekelund,et al.  Assessment of physical activity – a review of methodologies with reference to epidemiological research: a report of the exercise physiology section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation , 2010, European journal of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation : official journal of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Groups on Epidemiology & Prevention and Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Physiology.

[12]  Gregory J Welk,et al.  Validity of consumer-based physical activity monitors. , 2014, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[13]  Elizabeth J Lyons,et al.  Behavior Change Techniques Implemented in Electronic Lifestyle Activity Monitors: A Systematic Content Analysis , 2014, Journal of medical Internet research.

[14]  Kelly R Evenson,et al.  Assessment of Differing Definitions of Accelerometer Nonwear Time , 2009, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[15]  Catrine Tudor-Locke,et al.  Evaluation of Quality of Commercial Pedometers , 2006, Canadian Journal of Public Health.

[16]  Tim Olds,et al.  The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study , 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

[17]  Janice J Eng,et al.  Capturing step counts at slow walking speeds in older adults: comparison of ankle and waist placement of measuring device. , 2015, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[18]  H. P. van der Ploeg,et al.  Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[19]  Mark A Tully,et al.  The validation of Fibit Zip™ physical activity monitor as a measure of free-living physical activity , 2014, BMC Research Notes.

[20]  K. Volpp,et al.  Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. , 2015, JAMA.

[21]  Remko R. Lengton,et al.  Measuring steps with the Fitbit activity tracker: an inter-device reliability study , 2015, Journal of medical engineering & technology.

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

[23]  L. Cadmus-Bertram,et al.  Randomized Trial of a Fitbit-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Women. , 2015, American journal of preventive medicine.

[24]  C. Mazzà,et al.  Step Detection and Activity Recognition Accuracy of Seven Physical Activity Monitors , 2015, PloS one.

[25]  B E Ainsworth,et al.  Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity. , 2000, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.