IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0187706.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accelerometric estimates of physical activity vary unstably with data handling

Author

Listed:
  • Maia P Smith
  • Marie Standl
  • Joachim Heinrich
  • Holger Schulz

Abstract

Background: Because of unreliable self-report, accelerometry is increasingly used to objectively monitor physical activity (PA). However, results of accelerometric studies vary depending on the chosen cutpoints between activity intensities. Population-specific activity patterns likely affect the size of these differences. To establish their size and stability we apply three sets of cutpoints, including two calibrated to a single reference, to our accelerometric data and compare PA estimates. Methods: 1402 German adolescents from the GINIplus and LISAplus cohorts wore triaxial accelerometers (Actigraph GT3x) for one week (mean 6.23 days, 14.7 hours per day) at the hip. After validation of wear, we applied three sets of cutpoints for youth, including the most common standard (Freedson, 2005) and two calibrated to a single reference, (Romanzini uni- and triaxial, from Romanzini, 2014) to these data, estimating daily sedentary, light, moderate, vigorous and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MPA, VPA, MVPA). Stability of differences was assessed by comparing Romanzini’s two sets of cutpoints. Results: Relative agreement between cutpoints was closer for activity of lower intensities (largest difference for sedentary behaviour 9%) but increased for higher intensities (largest difference for light activity 40%, MPA 102%, VPA 88%; all p

Suggested Citation

  • Maia P Smith & Marie Standl & Joachim Heinrich & Holger Schulz, 2017. "Accelerometric estimates of physical activity vary unstably with data handling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-12, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187706
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187706
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187706&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0187706?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187706. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.