Validation of Physical Activity Measuring Devices in Children

Thursday, March 19, 2015
Exhibit Hall Poster Area 1 (Convention Center)
Andrea C. Fadel1, Paul S. Weiss1, Adria Meyer2, Christi Kay2, Diane Allensworth2, Kimberly Green1, Patricia C. Cheung1 and Julie A. Gazmararian1, (1)Emory University, Atlanta, GA, (2)HealthMPowers, Norcross, GA
Background/Purpose: The Actigraph accelerometer has been validated to accurately measure physical activity in children. However, accelerometers are time-consuming and cost-prohibitive. Other less costly devices, including pedometers (Pebble and FITSTEP) and activity watches (MOVband), have yet to be validated in children. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the Pebble, GOPHER, and MOVband similarly measure physical activity in children as compared to the Actigraph.

Method: Seven volunteer classrooms and 182 fourth-grade students from one metro-Atlanta elementary school were recruited. All students wore the Actigraph during the school day for two weeks. Classrooms were randomly assigned to wear either the Pebble, the FITSTEP, or the MOVband during the school day during the second week. Students and teachers completed a questionnaire on the two devices worn. Metabolic Equivalents of a Task (METs) were compared between the Actigraph and the other devices. The average MET values were compared across devices to determine if the devices differ in measurement of physical activity volume.

Analysis/Results: The crude average METs are 1.00 (SD 0.0001) for the FITSTEP, 1.20 (SD 1.13) for the Pebble, 1.00 (SD 0.001) for the MOVband, and 1.01 (SD 0.01) for all Actigraphs. The mean METs for the Actigraphs in the group that also used the FITSTEP are 1.02 (SD 0.01), 1.01 (SD 0.004) for the group that also used the Pebble, and 1.02 (SD 0.01) for the group that used the MOVBand. Many students liked wearing the devices (56.7% Actigraph, 75.6% Fitstep, 91.1% MOVband) excluding the Pebble (12.5%). Except for the MOVband, the teachers did not find the devices distracting after a few days.

Conclusions: The average MET values were very similar, and the final deciding factors for devices should other determining factors including cost and ease of use. Devices do not have to be distracting or cost prohibitive, and more emphasis should be on the preference of the researchers and the goal of the study. Integrating the devices into the curriculum through students creating graphs and charts of their daily steps can enhance their academic experience. The results from this validation study will help future studies consider other options for devices measuring physical activity in children.