Convergent Validity of the Fitbit Charge 2 to Measure Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults

J. McVeigh, Jennifer Ellis, Caitlin Ross, Kim Tang, Phoebe Wan, Rhiannon E Halse, S. Dhaliwal, D. Kerr, L. Straker
{"title":"Convergent Validity of the Fitbit Charge 2 to Measure Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity in Overweight and Obese Adults","authors":"J. McVeigh, Jennifer Ellis, Caitlin Ross, Kim Tang, Phoebe Wan, Rhiannon E Halse, S. Dhaliwal, D. Kerr, L. Straker","doi":"10.1123/JMPB.2020-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Activity trackers provide real-time sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) data enabling feedback to support behavior change. The validity of activity trackers in an obese population in a free-living environment is largely unknown. This study determined the convergent validity of the Fitbit Charge 2 in measuring SB and PA in overweight adults. The participants (n = 59; M ± SD: age = 48 ± 11 years; body mass index = 34 ± 4 kg/m2) concurrently wore a Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer for 8 days. The same waking wear periods were analyzed, and standard cut points for GT3X+ and proprietary algorithms for the Charge 2, together with a daily step count, were used. Associations between outputs, mean difference (MD) and limits of agreement (LOA), and relative differences were assessed. There was substantial association between devices (intraclass correlation coefficients from .504, 95% confidence interval [.287, .672] for SB, to .925, 95% confidence interval [.877, .955] for step count). In comparison to the GT3X+, the Charge 2 overestimated SB (MD = 37, LOA = −129 to 204 min/day), moderate to vigorous PA (MD = 15, LOA = −49 to 79 min/day), and steps (MD = 1,813, LOA = −1,066 to 4,691 steps/day), and underestimated light PA (MD = −32, LOA = −123 to 58 min/day). The Charge 2 may be a useful tool for self-monitoring of SB and PA in an overweight population, as mostly good agreement was demonstrated with the GT3X+. However, there were mean and relative differences, and the implications of these need to be considered for overweight adult populations who are already at risk of being highly sedentary and insufficiently active.","PeriodicalId":73572,"journal":{"name":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/JMPB.2020-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Activity trackers provide real-time sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) data enabling feedback to support behavior change. The validity of activity trackers in an obese population in a free-living environment is largely unknown. This study determined the convergent validity of the Fitbit Charge 2 in measuring SB and PA in overweight adults. The participants (n = 59; M ± SD: age = 48 ± 11 years; body mass index = 34 ± 4 kg/m2) concurrently wore a Charge 2 and ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer for 8 days. The same waking wear periods were analyzed, and standard cut points for GT3X+ and proprietary algorithms for the Charge 2, together with a daily step count, were used. Associations between outputs, mean difference (MD) and limits of agreement (LOA), and relative differences were assessed. There was substantial association between devices (intraclass correlation coefficients from .504, 95% confidence interval [.287, .672] for SB, to .925, 95% confidence interval [.877, .955] for step count). In comparison to the GT3X+, the Charge 2 overestimated SB (MD = 37, LOA = −129 to 204 min/day), moderate to vigorous PA (MD = 15, LOA = −49 to 79 min/day), and steps (MD = 1,813, LOA = −1,066 to 4,691 steps/day), and underestimated light PA (MD = −32, LOA = −123 to 58 min/day). The Charge 2 may be a useful tool for self-monitoring of SB and PA in an overweight population, as mostly good agreement was demonstrated with the GT3X+. However, there were mean and relative differences, and the implications of these need to be considered for overweight adult populations who are already at risk of being highly sedentary and insufficiently active.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fitbit Charge 2测量超重和肥胖成年人久坐行为和身体活动的收敛有效性
活动跟踪器提供实时的久坐行为(SB)和身体活动(PA)数据,使反馈能够支持行为改变。运动追踪器在自由生活环境中的肥胖人群的有效性在很大程度上是未知的。本研究确定了Fitbit Charge 2在超重成人中测量SB和PA的收敛有效性。参与者(n = 59;M±SD:年龄= 48±11岁;体重指数= 34±4 kg/m2)同时佩戴Charge 2和ActiGraph GT3X+加速度计8天。分析了相同的清醒磨损周期,并使用了GT3X+的标准切割点和Charge 2的专有算法,以及每日步数。评估了产出、平均差异(MD)和一致限度(LOA)以及相对差异之间的关联。器械之间存在显著相关性(类内相关系数为0.504,95%置信区间)。[287, .672]为SB,至.925,95%置信区间[。[877,955]计算步数)。与GT3X+相比,Charge 2高估了SB (MD = 37, LOA =−129 ~ 204 min/day)、中度至剧烈PA (MD = 15, LOA =−49 ~ 79 min/day)和步数(MD = 1813, LOA =−1066 ~ 4691 steps/day),低估了轻度PA (MD =−32,LOA =−123 ~ 58 min/day)。电荷2可能是超重人群中SB和PA自我监测的有用工具,因为大多数情况下与GT3X+一致。然而,存在平均差异和相对差异,对于已经处于久坐和运动不足风险中的超重成人人群,需要考虑这些差异的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influence of Accelerometer Calibration on the Estimation of Objectively Measured Physical Activity: The Tromsø Study Criterion Validity of Accelerometers in Determining Knee-Flexion Angles During Sitting in a Laboratory Setting Comparability of 24-hr Activity Cycle Outputs From ActiGraph Counts Generated in ActiLife and RStudio Comparison of Sleep and Physical Activity Metrics From Wrist-Worn ActiGraph wGT3X-BT and GT9X Accelerometers During Free-Living in Adults Pre- Versus Postmeal Sedentary Duration—Impact on Postprandial Glucose in Older Adults With Overweight or Obesity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1