Validation of the Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph GT1M accelerometers for walking and running in adults

Abstract

Accelerometer-based activity monitors are commonly used by researchers and clinicians to assess physical activity. Recently, the Kenz Lifecorder EX (KL) and ActiGraph GT1M (AG) accelerometers have been made commercially available, but there is limited research on the validity of these devices. Therefore, we sought to validate step count, activity energy expenditure (EE), and total EE output from the KL and AG during treadmill walking and running. Ten male and 10 female participants performed 10 min treadmill walking and running trials, at speeds of 54, 80, 107, 134, 161, and 188 m.min-1. Step counts were hand tallied by 2 observers, and indirect calorimetry was used to validate the accelerometers' estimates of EE. AG total EE was calculated using the Freedson equation. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Pearson's correlations were used to analyze the data. At the slowest walking speed, the AG and KL counted 64% +/- 15% and 92% +/- 6% of the observed steps, respectively. At all other treadmill speeds, both activity monitors undercounted, compared with observed steps, by < or =3%. The KL underestimated activity EE at faster running speeds (p < 0.01), overestimated total EE at some walking speeds, and underestimated total EE at some running speeds (p < 0.01). The Freedson equation inaccurately measured total EE at most walking and running speeds. The KL and the AG are moderately priced accelerometers that provide researchers and clinicians with accurate estimates of step counts and activity EE at most walking and running speeds.

Validation of smartphone step count algorithm used in STARFISH smartphone application

“…The LOA between the activPAL TM and the STARFISH app step counts became stronger at higher walking speeds (0.9 m·s -1 and above) and was weakest at the lower speeds; being greater than 100% at 0.44 m·s -1 and ranging from 50-98% at 0.67 m·s -1 . These slower two speeds tested This study used methods similar to previous activity monitor validation studies with participants walking at speeds of 0.45, 0.67, 0.90 and 1.33m·s -1 [11,16,17]. The results of this study were similar to those validating other devices against accelerometers as agreement was stronger at speeds of 0.9 m·s -1 and above [16,17].…”

Passive leg movement-induced vasodilation in women: the impact of age

“…The latter assessment was separated into sedentary, low-, moderate-, high-, and very high-intensity categories using device-specific software (Actilife, Pensacola, FL). Previous research has documented the validity and reliability of the Actigraph GT1M in terms of the estimation of daily physical activity with both steps per day and accelerometer counts per minute (1,43). Classification of the subjects' level of physical activity, as determined by steps per day, was based on a validated H996 PLM-INDUCED VASODILATION WITH AGE IN WOMEN scale (sedentary, Ͻ5,000; low active, 5,000 -7,499; somewhat active, 7,500 -9,999; active, 10,000 -12,499; and highly active, Ն12,500 steps/day) (33,40).…”

Perfusion pressure and movement-induced hyperemia: evidence of limited vascular function and vasodilatory reserve with age

“…The latter assessment was separated into sedentary, low-, moderate-, high-, and very high-intensity categories using device-specific software (Actilife). Previous research has documented the validity and reliability of the Actigraph GT1M in estimation of daily physical activity (1,52). Classification of the subjects' level of physical activity was based on a validated step-determined scale (sedentary: Ͻ5,000 steps/day; low active: 5,000 -7,499 steps/day; somewhat active: 7,500 -9,999 steps/day; active: 10,000 -12,499 steps/day; and highly active: Ն12,500 steps/day) (40,49).…”