| Title |
Reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13102-015-0018-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thea J. M. Kooiman, Manon L. Dontje, Siska R. Sprenger, Wim P. Krijnen, Cees P. van der Schans, Martijn de Groot |
| Abstract |
Activity trackers can potentially stimulate users to increase their physical activity behavior. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of ten consumer activity trackers for measuring step count in both laboratory and free-living conditions. Healthy adult volunteers (n = 33) walked twice on a treadmill (4.8 km/h) for 30 min while wearing ten different activity trackers (i.e. Lumoback, Fitbit Flex, Jawbone Up, Nike+ Fuelband SE, Misfit Shine, Withings Pulse, Fitbit Zip, Omron HJ-203, Yamax Digiwalker SW-200 and Moves mobile application). In free-living conditions, 56 volunteers wore the same activity trackers for one working day. Test-retest reliability was analyzed with the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Validity was evaluated by comparing each tracker with the gold standard (Optogait system for laboratory and ActivPAL for free-living conditions), using paired samples t-tests, mean absolute percentage errors, correlations and Bland-Altman plots. Test-retest analysis revealed high reliability for most trackers except for the Omron (ICC .14), Moves app (ICC .37) and Nike+ Fuelband (ICC .53). The mean absolute percentage errors of the trackers in laboratory and free-living conditions respectively, were: Lumoback (-0.2, -0.4), Fibit Flex (-5.7, 3.7), Jawbone Up (-1.0, 1.4), Nike+ Fuelband (-18, -24), Misfit Shine (0.2, 1.1), Withings Pulse (-0.5, -7.9), Fitbit Zip (-0.3, 1.2), Omron (2.5, -0.4), Digiwalker (-1.2, -5.9), and Moves app (9.6, -37.6). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the limits of agreement varied from 46 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 2422 steps (Nike+ Fuelband) in the laboratory condition, and 866 steps (Fitbit Zip) to 5150 steps (Moves app) in the free-living condition. The reliability and validity of most trackers for measuring step count is good. The Fitbit Zip is the most valid whereas the reliability and validity of the Nike+ Fuelband is low. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 17 | 21% |
| United States | 16 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 6% |
| Spain | 5 | 6% |
| Australia | 3 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 49 | 61% |
| Scientists | 21 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 460 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 443 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 81 | 18% |
| Researcher | 76 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 75 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 71 | 15% |
| Other | 29 | 6% |
| Other | 61 | 13% |
| Unknown | 67 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 65 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 46 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 30 | 7% |
| Engineering | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 119 | 26% |
| Unknown | 96 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2018.
All research outputs
#387,973
of 25,380,089 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#14
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,476
of 291,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.