Towards uniform accelerometry analysis: a standardization methodology to minimize measurement bias due to systematic accelerometer wear-time variation.

Accelerometers are predominantly used to objectively measure the entire range of activity intensities - sedentary behaviour (SED), light physical activity (LPA) and moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). However, studies consistently report results without accounting for systematic accelerometer wear-time variation (within and between participants), jeopardizing the validity of these results. This study describes the development of a standardization methodology to understand and minimize measurement bias due to wear-time variation. Accelerometry is generally conducted over seven consecutive days, with participants' data being commonly considered 'valid' only if wear-time is at least 10 hours/day. However, even within 'valid' data, there could be systematic wear-time variation. To explore this variation, accelerometer data of Smart Cities, Healthy Kids study (www.smartcitieshealthykids.com) were analyzed descriptively and with repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Subsequently, a standardization method was developed, where case-specific observed wear-time is controlled to an analyst specified time period. Next, case-specific accelerometer data are interpolated to this controlled wear-time to produce standardized variables. To understand discrepancies owing to wear-time variation, all analyses were conducted pre- and post-standardization. Descriptive analyses revealed systematic wear-time variation, both between and within participants. Pre- and post-standardized descriptive analyses of SED, LPA and MVPA revealed a persistent and often significant trend of wear-time's influence on activity. SED was consistently higher on weekdays before standardization; however, this trend was reversed post-standardization. Even though MVPA was significantly higher on weekdays both pre- and post-standardization, the magnitude of this difference decreased post-standardization. Multivariable analyses with standardized SED, LPA and MVPA as outcome variables yielded more stable results with narrower confidence intervals and smaller standard errors. Standardization of accelerometer data is effective in not only minimizing measurement bias due to systematic wear-time variation, but also to provide a uniform platform to compare results within and between populations and studies. Key pointsSystematic variation in accelerometer wear-time both, within and between participants results in measurement bias.Standardization of data after controlling for wear-time produces stable outcome variables.Descriptive and multivariate analyses conducted with standardized outcome variables minimize measurement bias.

[1]  Mark S Tremblay,et al.  Quality control and data reduction procedures for accelerometry-derived measures of physical activity. , 2010, Health reports.

[2]  C. Caspersen,et al.  Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. , 1985, Public health reports.

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

[4]  S. Aznar,et al.  Recommended levels of physical activity to avoid adiposity in Spanish children , 2013, Pediatric obesity.

[5]  Issa Zakeri,et al.  Prediction of activity energy expenditure using accelerometers in children. , 2004, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[6]  R. Eston,et al.  Patterns of habitual activity across weekdays and weekend days in 9-11-year-old children. , 2008, Preventive medicine.

[7]  L. Sherar,et al.  Smart cities, healthy kids: the association between neighbourhood design and children's physical activity and time spent sedentary. , 2012, Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique.

[8]  L. Andersen,et al.  The association between aerobic fitness and physical activity in children and adolescents: the European youth heart study , 2010, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[9]  D. Heil Predicting Activity Energy Expenditure Using the Actical® Activity Monitor , 2006, Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

[10]  M. Tremblay,et al.  A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review , 2008, The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity.

[11]  Song Yang,et al.  Imputation of missing data when measuring physical activity by accelerometry. , 2005, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[12]  C. Craig,et al.  Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. , 2011, Health reports.

[13]  E. Kristjansson,et al.  Neighbourhood differences in objectively measured physical activity, sedentary time and body mass index , 2011 .

[14]  Daniel S. Laferriere,et al.  Procedures used to standardize data collected by RT3 triaxial accelerometers in a large-scale weight-loss trial. , 2009, Journal of physical activity & health.

[15]  T. Barstow,et al.  The level and tempo of children's physical activities: an observational study. , 1995, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[16]  Russell R. Pate,et al.  The Evolving Definition of "Sedentary" , 2008, Exercise and sport sciences reviews.

[17]  Catrine Tudor-Locke,et al.  U.S. population profile of time-stamped accelerometer outputs: impact of wear time. , 2011, Journal of physical activity & health.

[18]  Joe Feinglass,et al.  The effects of daily weather on accelerometer-measured physical activity. , 2011, Journal of physical activity & health.

[19]  D. Kerr,et al.  Rationale, design and methods for a staggered-entry, waitlist controlled clinical trial of the impact of a community-based, family-centred, multidisciplinary program focussed on activity, food and attitude habits (Curtin University’s Activity, Food and Attitudes Program—CAFAP) among overweight adole , 2012, BMC Public Health.

[20]  The Relationship between Physical Activity Variety and Objectively Measured Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity Levels in Weight Loss Maintainers and Normal-Weight Individuals , 2012, Journal of obesity.

[21]  Larry Webber,et al.  Weekend and Weekday Patterns of Physical Activity in Overweight and Normal‐weight Adolescent Girls , 2007, Obesity.

[22]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[23]  Carlos Salas,et al.  Objective vs. Self-Reported Physical Activity and Sedentary Time: Effects of Measurement Method on Relationships with Risk Biomarkers , 2012, PloS one.

[24]  Mary Duggan,et al.  New Canadian physical activity guidelines. , 2011, Applied physiology, nutrition, and metabolism = Physiologie appliquee, nutrition et metabolisme.

[25]  S. Berthoin,et al.  Improving physical activity assessment in prepubertal children with high-frequency accelerometry monitoring: a methodological issue. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[26]  R. Mcmurray,et al.  Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children , 2008, Journal of sports sciences.

[27]  M. Tremblay,et al.  Actical accelerometer sedentary activity thresholds for adults. , 2011, Journal of physical activity & health.