Assessing Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity in Older Adults: Validity of a Commercial Activity Tracker

Comparative Analysis of ActiGraph Step Counting Methods in Adults: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to compare steps per day across ActiGraph models, wear locations, and filtering methods. A secondary aim was to compare ActiGraph steps per day to those estimated by the ankle-worn StepWatch.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of adults published before May 12, 2022, that compared free-living steps per day of ActiGraph step counting methods and studies that compared ActiGraph to StepWatch. Random-effects meta-analysis compared ActiGraph models, wear locations, filter mechanisms, and ActiGraph to StepWatch steps per day. A sensitivity analysis of wear location by younger and older age was included.

RESULTS

Twelve studies, with 46 comparisons, were identified. When worn on the hip, the AM-7164 recorded 123% of the GT series steps (no low-frequency extension (no LFE) or default filter). However, the AM-7164 recorded 72% of the GT series steps when the LFE was enabled. Independent of the filter used (i.e., LFE, no LFE), ActiGraph GT series monitors captured more steps on the wrist than on the hip, especially among older adults. Enabling the LFE on the GT series monitors consistently recorded more steps, regardless of wear location. When using the default filter (no LFE), ActiGraph recorded fewer steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on hip 73% and ActiGraph on wrist 97% of StepWatch steps). When LFE was enabled, ActiGraph recorded more steps than StepWatch (ActiGraph on the hip, 132%; ActiGraph on the wrist, 178% of StepWatch steps).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of ActiGraph model, wear location, and filter all impacted steps per day in adults. These can markedly alter the steps recorded compared with a criterion method (StepWatch). This review provides critical insights for comparing studies using different ActiGraph step counting methods.

Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review

Measurement of real-world physical activity (PA) data using accelerometry in older adults is informative and clinically relevant, but not without challenges. This review appraises the reliability and validity of accelerometry-based PA measures of older adults collected in real-world conditions. Eight electronic databases were systematically searched, with 13 manuscripts included. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability were: walking duration (0.94 to 0.95), lying duration (0.98 to 0.99), sitting duration (0.78 to 0.99) and standing duration (0.98 to 0.99). ICCs for relative reliability ranged from 0.24 to 0.82 for step counts and 0.48 to 0.86 for active calories. Absolute reliability ranged from 5864 to 10,832 steps and for active calories from 289 to 597 kcal. ICCs for responsiveness for step count were 0.02 to 0.41, and for active calories 0.07 to 0.93. Criterion validity for step count ranged from 0.83 to 0.98. Percentage of agreement for walking ranged from 63.6% to 94.5%; for lying 35.6% to 100%, sitting 79.2% to 100%, and standing 38.6% to 96.1%. Construct validity between step count and criteria for moderate-to-vigorous PA was rs = 0.68 and 0.72. Inter-rater reliability and criterion validity for walking, lying, sitting and standing duration are established. Criterion validity of step count is also established. Clinicians and researchers may use these measures with a limited degree of confidence. Further work is required to establish these properties and to extend the repertoire of PA measures beyond "volume" counts to include more nuanced outcomes such as intensity of movement and duration of postural transitions.