Comparison of the performance of the activPAL™ Professional physical activity logger to a discrete accelerometer-based activity monitor

Godfrey, Alan; Culhane, K.M.; Lyons, G.M.

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.10.001

Cited by 168 publications

(133 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering the laboratory-based results of the current research and previous studies [8,9], it is likely that the activPAL yielded the most accurate measure of steps accumulated in free living conditions, which are likely to include walking at lower speeds. The only other study to consider the accuracy of activPAL units in free living conditions (albeit for approximately 6 h only) showed a high degree of accuracy in classifying time spent stepping [7]. A second-by second analysis of activPAL-derived classification of time spent stepping, sitting/lying, and standing showed an overall agreement of 95% with directly observed activities, however the limits of agreement were widest for walking (range -16.1% to 12.1%) [5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Validity of the new step-count function in Actical accelerometers has been assessed using laboratory-based activities [4], however to our knowledge, no assessment of the validity of this function in measuring steps accumulated during free-living physical activity over sustained periods of time (i.e., > 1 d) has been conducted. activPAL monitors have shown acceptable reliability [5,6] and validity [7] for measuring time spent being sedentary and active (including walking) under controlled/laboratory conditions. Evidence suggests that the accuracy of these monitors may be lowest when assessing time spent walking [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Counting Steps in Research: A Comparison of Accelerometry and Pedometry

Oliver¹,

Badland²,

Shepherd³

et al. 2011

OJPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to assess the validity of the step count functions in Actical accelerometers and activPAL inclinometers, compared with pedometer-derived step count data. Firstly, directly observed step counts over 3 treadmill speeds were compared with steps collected from 3 pedometers, accelerometers, and inclinometers in 10 adults. Secondly, step count data were derived from 22 participants who wore a pedometer, accelerometer, and inclinometer over 48 hours. Agreement between measurement tools was determined. All monitors appropriately measured steps in the laboratory conditions. In free living conditions, the mean percentage differences with pedometer-determined step counts were -7.3% and 7.0% for the Actical and activPAL monitors, respectively. With the exception of slow walking for the Actical units (ICC < 0.001), acceptable reliability was found within units for all treadmill speeds, and across units during the free living condition. The 95% prediction interval ranges were wide, ranging from -68.8% to 54.2% for the Acticals, and from -39.1% to 53.2% for the activPALs.Step counts gathered from Actical and activPAL units should not be used interchangeably with pedometer-derived step count data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Counting Steps in Research: A Comparison of Accelerometry and Pedometry

Oliver¹,

Badland²,

Shepherd³

et al. 2011

OJPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years the activPAL (PAL Technologies Glasgow, Scotland) has been used widely for measurement of sedentary behavior, specifically posture, of adults (5,6). Moreover, the validity of the activPAL for measurement of posture is now established for both young children and adults (3,5,6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the validity of the activPAL for measurement of posture is now established for both young children and adults (3,5,6). The activPAL is now being used widely in children, but no published studies have reported on activPAL measures of physical activity or sedentary behavior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Measurement of Habitual Sedentary Behavior in Pre-School Children: Comparison of Activpal With Actigraph Monitors

Martin

McNeill

Penpraze

et al. 2011

Pediatric Exercise Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philippa Dall and Malcolm GranatGlasgow Caledonian University James Y. PatonUniversity of Glasgow John J. Reilly University of StrathclydeThe Actigraph is well established for measurement of both physical activity and sedentary behavior in children. The activPAL is being used increasingly in children, though with no published evidence on its use in free-living children to date. The present study compared the two monitors in preschool children. Children (n 23) wore both monitors simultaneously during waking hours for 5.6d and 10h/d. Daily mean percentage of time sedentary (nontranslocation of the trunk) was 74.6 (SD 6.8) for the Actigraph and 78.9 (SD 4.3) for activPAL. Daily mean percentage of time physically active (light intensity physical activity plus MVPA) was 25.4 (SD 6.8) for the Actigraph and 21.1 (SD 4.3) for the activPAL. Bland-Altman tests and paired t tests suggested small but statistically significant differences between the two monitors. Actigraph and activPAL estimates of sedentary behavior and physical activity in young children are similar at a group level.Accelerometers can provide important insights into both physical activity and sedentary behavior of children (1,8). The Actigraph (MTI, Florida) for example provides objective measurement of both physical activity (with particular emphasis Martin, McNeill, Penpraze, and Paton are with the College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences,

show abstract

“…Secondary outcome measures included the cardiac depression scale (CDS), a 26-item scale validated for use with cardiac patients [11], the exercise selfefficacy scale (EES) [12], 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) [13], muscle strength (measured using a hand-held dynamometer), and week-long physical activity levels measured with an accelerometer-based activity monitor ( ActivePAL ® system) [14]. The 6WMD, muscle strength and physical activity levels were measured only in intervention patients.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%