Convergent validity of ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers for estimating physical activity in adults
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 13, Issue: 6, Page: e0198587
2018
- 18Citations
- 77Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations18
- Citation Indexes18
- 18
- Captures77
- Readers77
- 77
Article Description
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to examine the convergent validity of two commonly-used accelerometers for estimating time spent in various physical activity intensities in adults. Methods: The sample comprised 37 adults (26 males) with a mean (SD) age of 37.6 (12.2) years from San Diego, USA. Participants wore ActiGraph GT3X+ and Actical accelerometers for three consecutive days. Percent agreement was used to compare time spent within four physical activity intensity categories under three counts per minute (CPM) threshold protocols: (1) using thresholds developed specifically for each accelerometer, (2) applying ActiGraph thresholds to regression-rectified Actical CPM data, and (3) developing new 'optimal' Actical thresholds. Results: Using Protocol 1, the Actical estimated significantly less time spent in light (-16.3%), moderate (-2.8%), and vigorous (-0.4%) activity than the ActiGraph, but greater time spent sedentary (+20.5%). Differences were slightly more pronounced when the low frequency extension filter on the ActiGraph was enabled. The two adjustment methods (Protocols 2 and 3) improved agreement in this sample. Conclusions: Our findings show that ActiGraph and Actical accelerometers provide significantly different estimates of time spent in various physical activity intensities. Regression and threshold adjustment were able to reduce these differences, although some level of non-agreement persisted. Researchers should be aware of the inherent limitations of count-based physical activity assessment when reporting and interpreting study findings.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85048448665&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198587; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29894485; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198587; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198587; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198587
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know