Validation of Smartphones and Different Low-Cost Activity Trackers for Step Counting Under Free-Living Conditions

C. Goh, Nan Xin Wang, A. Müller, Rowena Yap, S. Edney, F. Müller-Riemenschneider
{"title":"Validation of Smartphones and Different Low-Cost Activity Trackers for Step Counting Under Free-Living Conditions","authors":"C. Goh, Nan Xin Wang, A. Müller, Rowena Yap, S. Edney, F. Müller-Riemenschneider","doi":"10.1123/jmpb.2022-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Smartphones and wrist-worn activity trackers are increasingly popular for step counting purposes and physical activity promotion. Although trackers from popular brands have frequently been validated, the accuracy of low-cost devices under free-living conditions has not been adequately determined. Objective: To investigate the criterion validity of smartphones and low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers under free-living conditions. Methods: Participants wore a waist-worn Yamax pedometer and seven different low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers continuously over 3 days, and an activity log was completed at the end of each day. At the end of the study, the number of step counts reflected on the participants’ smartphone for each of the 3 days was also recorded. To establish criterion validity, step counts from smartphones and activity trackers were compared with the pedometers using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, mean absolute percentage error, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Five of the seven activity trackers underestimated step counts and the remaining two and the smartphones overestimated step counts. Criterion validity was consistently higher for the activity trackers (r = .78–.92; mean absolute percentage error 14.5%–36.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .51–.91) than the smartphone (r = .37; mean absolute percentage error 55.7%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .36). Stratified analysis showed better validity of smartphones among female than for male participants. Phone wearing location also affected accuracy. Conclusions: Low-cost trackers demonstrated high accuracy in recording step counts and can be considered with confidence for research purposes or large-scale health promotion programs. The accuracy of using a smartphone for measuring step counts was substantially lower. Factors such as phone wear location and gender should also be considered when using smartphones to track step counts.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jmpb.2022-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Smartphones and wrist-worn activity trackers are increasingly popular for step counting purposes and physical activity promotion. Although trackers from popular brands have frequently been validated, the accuracy of low-cost devices under free-living conditions has not been adequately determined. Objective: To investigate the criterion validity of smartphones and low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers under free-living conditions. Methods: Participants wore a waist-worn Yamax pedometer and seven different low-cost wrist-worn activity trackers continuously over 3 days, and an activity log was completed at the end of each day. At the end of the study, the number of step counts reflected on the participants’ smartphone for each of the 3 days was also recorded. To establish criterion validity, step counts from smartphones and activity trackers were compared with the pedometers using Pearson’s correlation coefficient, mean absolute percentage error, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Results: Five of the seven activity trackers underestimated step counts and the remaining two and the smartphones overestimated step counts. Criterion validity was consistently higher for the activity trackers (r = .78–.92; mean absolute percentage error 14.5%–36.1%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .51–.91) than the smartphone (r = .37; mean absolute percentage error 55.7%; intraclass correlation coefficient: .36). Stratified analysis showed better validity of smartphones among female than for male participants. Phone wearing location also affected accuracy. Conclusions: Low-cost trackers demonstrated high accuracy in recording step counts and can be considered with confidence for research purposes or large-scale health promotion programs. The accuracy of using a smartphone for measuring step counts was substantially lower. Factors such as phone wear location and gender should also be considered when using smartphones to track step counts.
验证智能手机和不同的低成本活动跟踪器在自由生活条件下的步数
背景:智能手机和手腕上佩戴的活动追踪器越来越受欢迎,用于计算步数和促进体育活动。尽管流行品牌的追踪器经常得到验证,但低成本设备在自由生活条件下的准确性尚未得到充分确定。目的:探讨自由生活条件下智能手机与低成本腕带运动追踪器的效度。方法:参与者连续3天佩戴腰戴式Yamax计步器和7种不同的低成本腕戴式活动追踪器,并在每天结束时完成活动日志。在研究结束时,研究人员还记录了三天内参与者智能手机上显示的步数。为了建立标准效度,使用Pearson相关系数、平均绝对百分比误差和类内相关系数将智能手机和活动追踪器的步数与计步器进行比较。结果:七个运动追踪器中有五个低估了步数,其余两个和智能手机高估了步数。运动追踪者的标准效度持续较高(r = 0.78 - 0.92;平均绝对百分比误差14.5% ~ 36.1%;类内相关系数:0.51 - 0.91)高于智能手机(r = 0.37;平均绝对百分比误差55.7%;类内相关系数:0.36)。分层分析显示,智能手机在女性参与者中的有效性高于男性参与者。手机佩戴位置也会影响准确性。结论:低成本追踪器在记录步数方面具有较高的准确性,可以放心地考虑用于研究目的或大规模健康促进计划。使用智能手机测量步数的准确性要低得多。在使用智能手机跟踪步数时,还应考虑手机佩戴位置和性别等因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信