Abstract
Background: Wrist activity trackers (WATs) are becoming popular and widely used for the monitoring of physical activity. However, the validity of many WATs in measuring steps remains unknown. Objective: To determine the validity of the following WATs: Garmin Vivofit (Vivofit) and Polar Loop (Loop), by comparing them with well-validated devices, Yamax Digiwalker SW-701 pedometer (Yamax) and hip-mounted ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer (ActiGraph), in healthy adults. Methods: In free-living conditions, adult volunteers (N = 20) aged 25 to 52 years wore two WATs (Vivofit and Loop) with Yamax and ActiGraph simultaneously over a 7 day period. The validity of Vivofit and Loop was assessed by comparing each device with the Yamax and ActiGraph, using a paired samples t-test, mean absolute percentage errors, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Results: The differences between average steps per day were significant for all devices, except the difference between Vivofit and Yamax (p = .06; d = 0.2). Compared with Yamax and ActiGraph, the mean absolute percentage errors of Vivofit were -4.0% and 12.5%, respectively. For Loop the mean absolute percentage error was 8.9% compared with Yamax and 28.0% compared with ActiGraph. Vivofit showed a very strong correlation with both Yamax and ActiGraph (ICC = .89). Loop showed a very strong correlation with Yamax (ICC = .89) and a strong correlation with ActiGraph (ICC = .70). Conclusions: Vivofit showed higher validity than Loop in measuring daily step counts in free-living conditions. Loop appears to overestimate the daily number of steps in individuals who take more steps during a day.
Highlights
Recommended amount of physical activity (PA) can have a positive influence on risk factors associated with a wide range of non-communicable diseases, such as ischaemic heart disease
Wrist activity trackers (WATs) have become a widespread tool for the assessment of achieved PA; these devices must be subjected to studies to test their validity for PA assessment in free-living conditions
The objective of this study was to determine the validity of the Vívofit and Loop by comparing them to well-validated devices, i.e. ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer (ActiGraph) (Chen & Bassett, 2005) and Yamax Digiwalker SW 701 pedometer (Yamax) (Schneider, Crouter, Lukajic, & Bassett, 2003)
Summary
Recommended amount of physical activity (PA) can have a positive influence on risk factors associated with a wide range of non-communicable diseases, such as ischaemic heart disease Compliance to hip-worn accelerometer or pedometer can be affected by (1) the respondent’s willingness to wear a pedometer or accelerometer for a specified period (Frömel, Svozil, Chmelík, Jakubec, & Groffik, 2016); (2) willingness to put the device back on after changing clothes and to remove the device for the period of sleeping, personal hygiene and for water sport (Fairclough et al, 2015) This can be resolved by using wrist activity trackers (WATs); these are accelerometer devices which attempt to provide users with an easy way to objectively monitor their PA The validity of Vívofit and Loop was assessed by comparing each device with the Yamax and ActiGraph, using a paired samples t-test, mean absolute percentage errors, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Conclusions: Vívofit showed higher validity than Loop in measuring daily step counts in free-living conditions. Loop appears to overestimate the daily number of steps in individuals who take more steps during a day
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
