Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers

Kooiman, Thea; Dontje, Manon L.; Sprenger, Siska R.; Krijnen, Wim P.; Schans, Cees P. van der; Groot, Martijn de

doi:10.1186/s13102-015-0018-5

Cited by 347 publications

(320 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

276

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, available evidence suggests that step estimations from CPAMs are both more reliable and more valid than kcal estimations. The correlations obtained in the present study were comparable to those reported by Diaz et al for steps (0.97 vs. 0.99) and kcals (0.94 vs. 0.97), as well as those of Takacs et al [11] for steps (0.96 vs. 1.00), respectively [8,10]. It is important to note the consistently high correlations across various activity protocols indicating that reliability remains high even with the inclusion of a variety of activities, contrasting validity research where inclusion of diverse activities lowers CPAM validity [18].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The ICCs in the present study are higher than those found by Kooiman et al [8] who determined intra-monitor reliability for steps using the FF, JU, and FZ; their ICCs were 0.81, 0.83, and 0.90, respectively compared to 0.89, 0.88, and 0.99 in our study also using a laboratory setting [8]. Discrepancies between the studies could be attributable to differences in activity protocols.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Discrepancies between the studies could be attributable to differences in activity protocols. Kooiman et al [8] used a single treadmill walking activity, whereas the present study used seven different activities, including both ambulatory (e.g., walking) and non-ambulatory (e.g., typing) tasks. The larger number and greater variety of activities used in our study builds upon preexisting CPAM literature and advances our understanding on how these devices perform during free-living activity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Determining the Reliability of Several Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limited research exists on the reliability of consumer-based physical activity monitors (CPAMs) despite numerous studies on their validity. Consumers often purchase CPAMs to assess their physical activity (PA) habits over time, emphasizing CPAM reliability more so than their validity; therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability of several CPAMs. In this study, 30 participants wore a pair of four CPAM models (Fitbit One, Zip, Flex, and Jawbone Up24) for a total of eight monitors, while completing seven activities in the laboratory. Activities were completed in two consecutive five-minute bouts. Participants then wore either all wrist-or hip-mounted CPAMs in a free-living setting for the remainder of the day. Intra-monitor reliability for steps (0.88-0.99) was higher than kcals (0.77-0.94), and was higher for hip-worn CPAMs than for wrist-worn CPAMs (p < 0.001 for both). Inter-monitor reliability in the laboratory for steps (0.81-0.99) was higher than kcals (0.64-0.91) and higher for hip-worn CPAMs than for wrist-worn CPAMs (p < 0.001 for both). Free-living correlations were 0. 61-0.98, 0.35-0.96, and 0.97-0.98 for steps, kcals, and active minutes, respectively. These findings illustrate that all CPAMs assessed yield reliable estimations of PA. Additionally, all CPAMs tested can provide reliable estimations of physical activity within the laboratory but appear less reliable in a free-living setting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining the Reliability of Several Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years fashionable gadgets, such as Fitbit, Jawbone UP and Nike+ Fuelband SE, have appeared in the consumer electronics market [14]. Such fitness devices demonstrate the rise of a trend towards self-monitoring, as well as the willingness of users to wear them.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

SPW-1: A Low-Maintenance Wearable Activity Tracker for Residential Monitoring and Healthcare Applications

Fafoutis

Janko

Mellios

et al. 2016

Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this paper, we present SPW-1; a low-profile versatile wearable activity tracker that employs two ultra-low-power accelerometers and relies on Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) for wireless communication. Aiming for a low maintenance system, SPW-1 is able to offer a battery lifetime of multiple months. Measurements on its wireless performance in a real residential environment with thick brick walls, demonstrate that SPW-1 can fully cover a room and -in most cases -the adjacent room, as well. SPW-1 is a research platform that is aimed to be used both as a data collecting tool for health-oriented studies outside the laboratory, but also for research on wearable technologies and body-centric communications. As a result, SPW-1 incorporates versatile features, such as external sensor support, various powering options, and accelerometer configuration options that can support a wide range applications from kinematics to long-term activity recognition.

show abstract

“…Until now, only activity trackers have been scrutinized for their validity [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. These studies found that most activity trackers (Fitbit Flex, Fitbit Zip, Fitbit One, Fitbit Charge HR, Jawbone Up, Nike+ Fuelband SE, Misfit Shine, Withings Pulse) are valid for measuring steps, but to a lesser extent for measuring MVPA.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Accuracy of Smart Devices for Measuring Physical Activity in Daily Life: Validation Study (Preprint)

Degroote¹,

Bourdeaudhuij²,

Verloigne³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Wearables for monitoring physical activity are increasingly popular. These devices are not only used by consumers to monitor their own levels of PA, but also by reseachers to track the behavior of large samples. Consequently, it is important to explore how accurately physical activity can be tracked via these devices. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate concurrent validity of three Android Wear smartwatches (Polar M600, Huawei Watch, Asus Zenwatch3) and the Fitbit Charge with an ActiGraph accelerometer for measuring steps and MVPA (moderate-to-vigorous physical activity) on both a day and 15 min level. Methods:A free-living protocol was used in which 36 adults engaged in usual daily activities over 2 days while wearing two different wearables on the same wrist of the preferred hand and an ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer on the hip. Validity was evaluated on both levels by comparing each wearable with the ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer, using correlations and Conclusions:In sum, all four consumer-level devices can be considered accurate step counters in free-living conditions. This study, however, provides evidence of systematic bias for all devices in measurement of MVPA. The results on a 15-minute level also indicate that these devices are not sufficiently accurate to provide correct real-time feedback.

show abstract

Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers

Cited by 347 publications

References 33 publications

Determining the Reliability of Several Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors

Determining the Reliability of Several Consumer-Based Physical Activity Monitors

SPW-1: A Low-Maintenance Wearable Activity Tracker for Residential Monitoring and Healthcare Applications

The Accuracy of Smart Devices for Measuring Physical Activity in Daily Life: Validation Study (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About