RMA DelaysOur Admin Portal website is currently experiencing technical difficulties, and it could result in delays with RMAs being processed. We are currently working to resolve these issues. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Join us on August 11th for an ActiGraph webinar hosted by Xtalks:
Oncology Research and Care: Reimagining Digital InnovationRegister Now
Validity and Reproducibility of Motion Sensors in Youth: A Systematic Update
- Published on April 2009
Purpose To review recently published studies on the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility of motion sensors used to assess physical activity in healthy children and adolescents (2-l1 yr).
Methods In October 2004, a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and PsyclNFO was performed. This search has been updated in October 2007. In this update, the clinimetric quality of three pedometers (DigÌ-Walker, Walk4Life, and Sun TrekLtNQ) and nine accelerometers (ActiGraph, BioTrainer, StepWatch Activity Monitor, Actiwatch, Actical, Tritrac-R3D, RT3, ActivTracer, and Mini-Motion logger) has been evaluated and compared using a checklist.
Results Thirty-two recently published clinimetric studies have been reviewed. All 12 motion sensors have been validated in youth in one or more studies. There is strong evidence for moderate validity of the StepWatch in children and adolescents (4-18 yr) and moderate to good validity of the ActiGraph in preschool children and young children (2-8 yr). There is less evidence for the reproducibility and feasibility of the 12 motion sensors. Strong evidence exists for good reproducibility of the ActiGraph in preschool children (2-4 yr).
Conclusion Compared to the review performed in 2004, there is increased evidence for the clinimetric quality of pedometers and accelerometers in youth. Most motion sensors seem reproducible, valid, and feasible in assessing physical activity in youth.