↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the Fitbit Zip for monitoring physical activity among free-living adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of the Fitbit Zip for monitoring physical activity among free-living adolescents
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2253-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Margaret Schneider, Larissa Chau

Abstract

The widespread availability of affordable consumer-oriented devices for monitoring physical activity offers an appealing option to physical activity researchers, but studies are needed to demonstrate the validity and reliability of these products. To examine the validity of the Fitbit Zip, we recruited three cohorts (N's = 25, 35, and 27) of middle-school students to wear the Fitbit and the ActiGraph simultaneously for a week. Adolescents were healthy volunteers representing a range of activity levels. Mean daily minutes of MVPA and mean steps per day were compared between the Fitbit Zip and the Actigraph. The step data for the Fitbit Zip correlated highly with the step data yielded by the ActiGraph (r's = .72, .92, .96), and the MVPA data for the Fitbit Zip correlated highly with the MVPA data from the ActiGraph (r's = .67, .79, .94). Bland-Altman plots revealed that the Fitbit Zip overestimated activity in comparison to the ActiGraph, especially for Cohort One, which completed the study before Fitbit modified their algorithms to count as activity only bouts that continued for at least 10 min. Our data suggest that the Fitbit Zip is a reasonable alternative to the ActiGraph for estimating activity among free-living adolescents. However, data from the Fitbit should not be used interchangeably with data from the ActiGraph, as there is a consistent tendency for the Fitbit to overestimate steps in comparison to the ActiGraph. Also, the findings confirm concern about using for research a consumer-oriented device that does not make public their algorithms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Sports and Recreations 13 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Computer Science 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,849,383
of 15,449,492 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#618
of 3,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,596
of 269,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,449,492 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,419 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 269,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them