CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 480Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsCardiovascular and exercise physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How many days of pedometer monitoring predict weekly physical activity in adults?

TUDORLOCKE, C, BURKETT, L, REIS, J, AINSWORTH, B, MACERA, C, WILSON, D·2005·Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background The study purpose was to establish the number (and type) of days needed to estimate mean pedometer-determined steps/day in a field setting.Methods Seven days of data were collected from 90 participants (33 males, age = 49.1 +/- 16.2 years, BMI = 27.2 +/- 4.1 kg/m(2); 57 females, age = 44.8 +/- 16.9 years, BMI = 27.0 +/- 5.9 kg/m(2)). Mean steps/day were computed for all 7 days (the criterion), each single day, and combinations of days. Analyses included repeated measures ANOVA, intra-class correlations (ICC), and regression.Results There was a significant difference (P < 0.001) between days. The difference was limited to Sunday and accounted for 5% of the variance. ICC analyses indicated a minimum of 3 days is necessary to achieve a reliability of 0.80. The adjusted R(2) was 0.79 for a single day (specifically Wednesday), 0.89 for 2 days (Wednesday, Thursday), and 0.94 for 3 days (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday). Sunday was the last day to enter the model.Conclusions Although there is a statistical difference between days, there is little practical difference, and the primary distinction appears limited to Sunday. Although a single day of collection is not acceptable, any 3 days can provide a sufficient estimate.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.003

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 480

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
TUDORLOCKE, C., BURKETT, L., REIS, J., AINSWORTH, B., MACERA, C., & WILSON, D.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
ORCID
WILSON, D
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-03
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
293-298
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.003
OpenAlex
W2039648153
Cited by
479
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 26
FWCI
6.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of South Carolina
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
pedometer monitoring, daily step count, physical activity estimation, measurement reliability, intra-class correlation, weekly physical activity, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Motor Activity, Predictive Value of Tests, Reference Standards, Regression Analysis, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Walking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review