scholarly journals Examination of Different Accelerometer Cut-Points for Assessing Sedentary Behaviors in Children

PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e90630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youngwon Kim ◽  
Jung-Min Lee ◽  
Bradley P. Peters ◽  
Glenn A. Gaesser ◽  
Gregory J. Welk
2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Fischer ◽  
Mine Yılıdrım ◽  
Jo Salmon ◽  
Mai J.M. Chinapaw

Actigraph accelerometers are hypothesized to be valid measurements for assessing children’s sedentary time. However, there is considerable variation in accelerometer cut-points used. Therefore, we compared the most common accelerometer sedentary cut-points of children performing sedentary behaviors. Actigraph Actitrainer uniaxial accelerometers were used to measure children’s activity intensity (29 children, 5-11 years old) during different activities, namely playing computer games, nonelectronic sedentary games, watching television and playing outdoors. A structured protocol was the criterion for assessing the validity of four common cut-points (100, 300, 800, 1100 counts/minute). The median counts during all sedentary behaviors were below the lowest comparison cut-point of 100 cpm. The 75th percentile values for the sedentary behaviors were always below the cut-point of 300 cpm. Our results suggest that the cut-point of <100 cpm is the most appropriate.


2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 427-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piyapa Keawutan ◽  
Kristie L. Bell ◽  
Stina Oftedal ◽  
Peter S. W. Davies ◽  
Roslyn N. Boyd

2011 ◽  
Vol 43 (7) ◽  
pp. 1360-1368 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEWART G. TROST ◽  
PAUL D. LOPRINZI ◽  
REBECCA MOORE ◽  
KARIN A. PFEIFFER

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-187
Author(s):  
Emma L. J. Eyre ◽  
Jason Tallis ◽  
Susie Wilson ◽  
Lee Wilde ◽  
Liam Akhurst ◽  
...  

Background: The ability to objectively assess physical activity and inactivity in free living individuals is important in understanding activity patterns and the dose response relationship with health. Currently, a large number of research tools exist, but little evidence has examined the validity/utility of the Research Tracker 6 (RT6) monitor. Questions remain in regard to the best placements, positions, and cut-points in young adults to determine activity intensity across a range of activities. This study sought to address this gap in young adults. The study aims were 1) to examine criterion validity of RT6 in comparison to breath-by-breath gas analysis; 2) convergent validity of RT6 in comparison to ActiGraph and GENEActiv; 3) development of RT6 tri-axial vector magnitude cut-points to classify physical activity at different intensities (i.e., for sedentary, moderate, and vigorous); 4) to compare the generated cut-points of the RT6 in comparison to other tools. Methods: Following ethics approval and informed consent, 31 young adults (age = 22±3 years: BMI = 23±3 kg/m2) undertook five modes of physical activity/sedentary behaviors while wearing three different accelerometers at hip and wrist locations (ActiGraph GT9X Link, GENEActiv, RT6). Expired gas was sampled during the five activities (MetaMax 3B). Correlational analysis assessed the relationship between accelerometer devices and METs/VO2. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves analysis were used to calculate area under the curve and define cut-points for physical activity intensities. Results: The RT6 demonstrated criterion and convergent validity (r = 0.662–0.966, P < .05). RT6 generally performed good to excellent across activity intensities and monitor position (sedentary [AUC = 0.862–0.911], moderate [AUC = 0.849–0.830], vigorous [AUC = 0.872–0.877]) for non-dominant and dominant position, respectively. Cut-points were derived across activity intensities for non-dominant- and dominant-worn RT6 devices. Comparison of the RT6 derived cut-points identified appropriate agreement with comparative tools but yields the strongest agreement with the ActiGraph monitor at the hip location during sedentary, light, and moderate activity. Conclusion: The RT6 performed similar to the ActiGraph and GENEActiv and is capable of classifying the intensity of physical activity in young adults. As such this may offer a more useable tool for understanding current physical activity levels and in intervention studies to monitor and track changes without the excessive need for downloading and making complex analysis, especially given the option to view energy expenditure data while wearing it. The RT6 should be placed on the dominant hip when determining activities that are sedentary, moderate, or vigorous intensity.


2020 ◽  
Vol 109 (9) ◽  
pp. 1825-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Duncan ◽  
Emma L. J. Eyre ◽  
Val Cox ◽  
Clare M. P. Roscoe ◽  
Mark A. Faghy ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liane S. Lewis ◽  
James Hernon ◽  
Allan Clark ◽  
John M. Saxton

The present study investigated the convergent validity of an interview-administered IPAQ long version (IPAQ-L) in an older population by comparison with objective accelerometry movement data. Data from 52 participants (mean age 67.9 years, 62% male) were included in the analysis. Treadmill derived (TM-ACC: 1,952–5,724 cpm) and free-living physical activity (PA) derived (FL-ACC: 760–5,724 cpm) accelerometer cut-points were used as criterion. IPAQ-L measures (total PA, leisure-time, walking-time, sedentary time) were significantly correlated with accelerometry (P ≤ .05). Differences in sex were observed. Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement analysis showed that the IPAQ-L overestimated PA in relation to accelerometry. Our results show that an interview-administered IPAQ-L shows low to moderate convergent validity with objective PA measures in this population but there may be differences between males and females which should be further investigated.


2004 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. S197-S198
Author(s):  
Cheryl B. Anderson ◽  
Maria Hagstromer ◽  
Agneta Yngve ◽  
Deborah I. Thompson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document