可穿戴监视器和智能手机应用程序测量青少年步数和距离的有效性

Q3 Health Professions

Sport Mont Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.26773/smj.220601

M. Adamakis

{"title":"可穿戴监视器和智能手机应用程序测量青少年步数和距离的有效性","authors":"M. Adamakis","doi":"10.26773/smj.220601","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The growing popularity of wearable physical activity (PA) monitors and fitness applications (apps) in recent years and the vast amounts of data that they generate present attractive possibilities for surveillance. However, measurement accuracy is indispensable when tracking PA variables to provide meaningful measures of PA. The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion validity of wearable PA monitors and a combination of GPS and accelerometer free of charge smartphone apps, during self-paced outdoor walking and running. Thirty-eight healthy adolescents (15.3±2.0 years) participated in this cross-sectional study. They were fitted with Garmin Forerunner 310XT, Garmin Vivofit, Medisana Vifit, and smartphones running the Runkeeper, Runtastic, Sports Tracker (GPS), Pedometer, Accupedo, Pedometer and Pedometer 2.0 (accelerometer) apps. They were asked to walk and run 1.22 km for each trial and two researchers counted every step taken during trials with a digital tally counter. Validity was evaluated by comparing each device with the criterion measure using Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPE) and Bland-Altman plots. MAPE were low for Forerunner and GPS apps for distance in both conditions (2.27%- 9.73%), and significantly higher for the accelerometer monitors and apps (6.92%-39.02%). Vivofit (MAPE=6.51%) and Vifit (MAPE=6.66%) accurately estimated the number of steps during walking, however only Vivofit (MAPE=3.95%) was accurate during running. All accelerometer-based apps had high MAPE for step counting (9.87%-40.26%). The findings suggested that GPS monitors and apps were accurate tools for counting distance during walking and running, while accelerometer- based monitors and apps had higher errors. Vivofit provided accurate estimates of step count in both conditions, and Medisana Vifit was valid during walking. Accupedo was the only app with an acceptable step count error.","PeriodicalId":22150,"journal":{"name":"Sport Mont","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity of Wearable Monitors and Smartphone Applications to Measure Steps and Distance in Adolescents\",\"authors\":\"M. Adamakis\",\"doi\":\"10.26773/smj.220601\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The growing popularity of wearable physical activity (PA) monitors and fitness applications (apps) in recent years and the vast amounts of data that they generate present attractive possibilities for surveillance. However, measurement accuracy is indispensable when tracking PA variables to provide meaningful measures of PA. The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion validity of wearable PA monitors and a combination of GPS and accelerometer free of charge smartphone apps, during self-paced outdoor walking and running. Thirty-eight healthy adolescents (15.3±2.0 years) participated in this cross-sectional study. They were fitted with Garmin Forerunner 310XT, Garmin Vivofit, Medisana Vifit, and smartphones running the Runkeeper, Runtastic, Sports Tracker (GPS), Pedometer, Accupedo, Pedometer and Pedometer 2.0 (accelerometer) apps. They were asked to walk and run 1.22 km for each trial and two researchers counted every step taken during trials with a digital tally counter. Validity was evaluated by comparing each device with the criterion measure using Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPE) and Bland-Altman plots. MAPE were low for Forerunner and GPS apps for distance in both conditions (2.27%- 9.73%), and significantly higher for the accelerometer monitors and apps (6.92%-39.02%). Vivofit (MAPE=6.51%) and Vifit (MAPE=6.66%) accurately estimated the number of steps during walking, however only Vivofit (MAPE=3.95%) was accurate during running. All accelerometer-based apps had high MAPE for step counting (9.87%-40.26%). The findings suggested that GPS monitors and apps were accurate tools for counting distance during walking and running, while accelerometer- based monitors and apps had higher errors. Vivofit provided accurate estimates of step count in both conditions, and Medisana Vifit was valid during walking. Accupedo was the only app with an acceptable step count error.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sport Mont\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sport Mont\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26773/smj.220601\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sport Mont","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26773/smj.220601","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

近年来，可穿戴式体育活动(PA)监测器和健身应用程序(app)越来越受欢迎，它们产生的大量数据为监控提供了诱人的可能性。然而，在跟踪PA变量以提供有意义的PA度量时，测量精度是必不可少的。本研究的目的是检验可穿戴式PA监视器以及GPS和加速度计免费智能手机应用程序组合在自定节奏户外步行和跑步中的标准有效性。38名健康青少年(15.3±2.0岁)参加了本横断面研究。他们配备了Garmin Forerunner 310XT, Garmin Vivofit, Medisana Vifit，以及运行Runkeeper, Runtastic, Sports Tracker (GPS)， Pedometer, Accupedo, Pedometer和Pedometer 2.0(加速度计)应用程序的智能手机。他们被要求在每次试验中步行和跑步1.22公里，两名研究人员用数字计数器计算试验过程中所走的每一步。通过使用重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)、平均绝对百分比误差(MAPE)和Bland-Altman图将每个设备与标准测量进行比较来评估有效性。在这两种情况下，先行者和GPS应用程序的距离MAPE都较低(2.27%- 9.73%)，而加速度计监视器和应用程序的MAPE明显较高(6.92%-39.02%)。Vivofit (MAPE=6.51%)和Vifit (MAPE=6.66%)能准确估计步行时的步数，而只有Vivofit (MAPE=3.95%)能准确估计跑步时的步数。所有基于加速度计的应用程序在计算步数方面的MAPE都很高(9.87%-40.26%)。研究结果表明，GPS监测器和应用程序是计算步行和跑步距离的准确工具，而基于加速度计的监测器和应用程序的误差更高。Vivofit在两种情况下都提供了准确的步数估计，而Medisana Vifit在步行时是有效的。Accupedo是唯一一个步数错误可以接受的应用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Validity of Wearable Monitors and Smartphone Applications to Measure Steps and Distance in Adolescents

The growing popularity of wearable physical activity (PA) monitors and fitness applications (apps) in recent years and the vast amounts of data that they generate present attractive possibilities for surveillance. However, measurement accuracy is indispensable when tracking PA variables to provide meaningful measures of PA. The purpose of this study was to examine the criterion validity of wearable PA monitors and a combination of GPS and accelerometer free of charge smartphone apps, during self-paced outdoor walking and running. Thirty-eight healthy adolescents (15.3±2.0 years) participated in this cross-sectional study. They were fitted with Garmin Forerunner 310XT, Garmin Vivofit, Medisana Vifit, and smartphones running the Runkeeper, Runtastic, Sports Tracker (GPS), Pedometer, Accupedo, Pedometer and Pedometer 2.0 (accelerometer) apps. They were asked to walk and run 1.22 km for each trial and two researchers counted every step taken during trials with a digital tally counter. Validity was evaluated by comparing each device with the criterion measure using Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPE) and Bland-Altman plots. MAPE were low for Forerunner and GPS apps for distance in both conditions (2.27%- 9.73%), and significantly higher for the accelerometer monitors and apps (6.92%-39.02%). Vivofit (MAPE=6.51%) and Vifit (MAPE=6.66%) accurately estimated the number of steps during walking, however only Vivofit (MAPE=3.95%) was accurate during running. All accelerometer-based apps had high MAPE for step counting (9.87%-40.26%). The findings suggested that GPS monitors and apps were accurate tools for counting distance during walking and running, while accelerometer- based monitors and apps had higher errors. Vivofit provided accurate estimates of step count in both conditions, and Medisana Vifit was valid during walking. Accupedo was the only app with an acceptable step count error.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Sport Mont Health Professions-Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

24 weeks

期刊介绍： SM covers all aspects of sports science and medicine; all clinical aspects of exercise, health, and sport; exercise physiology and biophysical investigation of sports performance; sport biomechanics; sports nutrition; rehabilitation, physiotherapy; sports psychology; sport pedagogy, sport history, sport philosophy, sport sociology, sport management; and all aspects of scientific support of the sports coaches from the natural, social and humanistic side.