A meta-analysis of Fitbit devices: same company, different models, different validity evidence

Abstract

Fitbit devices are among the most commonly used physical activity devices used by the general public. Multiple studies have examined the validity evidence of Fitbit devices of estimating energy expenditure during physical activity compared to criterion references. However, the literature lacks objective, summary validity evidence that supports the use of various models of Fitbit devices. Therefore, this study aims (a) to examine the validity evidence among the various models of Fitbit devices and (b) to investigate the influence of several device factors on the validity evidence of Fitbit models using meta-analysis. A total of 402 articles were identified through five databases. Upon review of the articles, 29 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Seven different moderator variables, including Fitbit model, device placement, type of device, heart rate capability, release year of devices, activity types and sedentary activity, were identified and included in the meta-analysis to examine their impact on the validity evidence of Fitbit devices. The summarised validity coefficient of energy expenditure during physical activity estimated by Fitbit devices and measured by criterion references was r=.64 (k = 29, 95% CI [.59, .69], p<.001). Fitbit model was not found to be a significant factor impacting validity evidence of Fitbit devices, but heart rate capability, activity types and sedentary activity were found to be significant factors impacting validity evidence. This study found that not all Fitbit models have a similar ability in estimating energy expenditure during physical activity. Continued research is needed in examining the validity evidence of Fitbit devices, especially considering some factors may affect the validity evidence in measuring energy expenditure during physical activity.