2018
DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1491941
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of step accuracy using the Consumer Technology Association standard

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of commercially-available physical activity devices when walking and running at various treadmill speeds using CTA 2056: Physical Activity Monitoring for Fitness Wearables: Step Counting, standard by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA). Twenty participants (10 males and 10 females) completed self-paced walking and running protocols on the treadmill for five minutes each. Eight devices (Apple iWatch series 1, Fitbit Surge, Garmin 235, Moto 360, Polar A… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
17
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Accuracy was assessed for each device within each activity via mean bias, mean absolute percent error (MAPE), Bland-Altman analysis, an equivalence test, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using the two-way mixed model and absolute agreement in IBM SPSS (IBM Statistics version 26.0, Armonk, NY, USA). This analysis is consistent with previous literature employing multiple testing methods when aiming to prove that data are the same [6,14,20,21]. Equivalence tests were conducted using the two-one-sided-tests method with Jamovi statistical software [22].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Accuracy was assessed for each device within each activity via mean bias, mean absolute percent error (MAPE), Bland-Altman analysis, an equivalence test, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using the two-way mixed model and absolute agreement in IBM SPSS (IBM Statistics version 26.0, Armonk, NY, USA). This analysis is consistent with previous literature employing multiple testing methods when aiming to prove that data are the same [6,14,20,21]. Equivalence tests were conducted using the two-one-sided-tests method with Jamovi statistical software [22].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 71%
“…These standards provide guidance for researchers to evaluate research-grade devices as well as commercial devices used by the lay public. Since the CTA released their standards for protocol and validation, researchers have begun to acknowledge them in their designs for step count [6][7][8][9], and HR [10][11][12]. However, only limited studies have actually implemented these standards [6].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An et al [45], on the other hand, found higher validity for this device ( r range .4-.7). Bunn et al [46] tested the Polar A360 and also found it to have low validity (r range –.24 to .49). In addition, 4 studies compared steps in free-living populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2) Considering the rather modest decreases in fat mass (−6.3 ± 7.8 to −10.7 ± 8.7%) in this cohort of overweight to obese women, it is unlikely that net energy deficiency truly fell within the range of about 650–700 kcal/day (i.e., ≈75.000 kcal/16 weeks). While physical activity was tracked by calibrated, valid devices and can be thus considered as a reliable outcome (Bunn et al, 2019), results on energy restriction as reported by the participants were dubious. Although we strictly emphasized a practicable protocol that focused on carbohydrate reduction only, extensively discussed the dietary protocol with the participants and contacted participants every second week to check compliance with the dietary recommendations, the majority of participants obviously “over-reported” their caloric restriction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%