Cited by 76Physical Activity and HealthMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Walk this way: Validity evidence of iphone health application step count in laboratory and free-living conditions

Duncan, Markus J., Wunderlich, Kelly, Zhao, Yingying, Faulkner, Guy·2018·Journal of Sports Sciences

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to demonstrate the accuracy of the iPhone pedometer function in laboratory test conditions. However, no studies have attempted to evaluate evidence of convergent validity of the iPhone step counts as a surveillance tool in the field. This study takes a pragmatic approach to evaluating Health application derived iPhone step counts by measuring accuracy of a standardized criterion iPhone SE and a heterogeneous sample of participant owned iPhones (6 or newer) in a laboratory condition, as well as comparing personal iPhones to accelerometer derived steps in a free-living test. During lab tests, criterion and personal iPhones differed from manually counted steps by a mean bias of less than ±5% when walking at 5km/h, 7.5km/h and 10km/h on a treadmill, which is generally considered acceptable for pedometers. In the free-living condition steps differed by a mean bias of 21.5% or 1340 steps/day when averaged across observation days. Researchers should be cautioned in considering the use of iPhone models as a research grade pedometer for physical activity surveillance or evaluation, likely due to the iPhone not being continually carried by participants; if compliance can be maximized then the iPhone might be suitable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02640414.2017.1409855

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duncan, M. J., Wunderlich, K., Zhao, Y., & Faulkner, G.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Duncan, Markus J.
Venue
Journal of Sports Sciences
Published
2017-11-28
Volume
36
Issue
15
Pages
1695-1704
ISSN
  • 0264-0414 (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-447X
OpenAlex
W2770928294
Cited by
76
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7
FWCI
5.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sports Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Applied Public Health Chair (APHC 201405CPP-329463)
  • Institute of Population and Public Health (APHC 201405CPP-329463)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
step count accuracy, convergent validity, physical activity surveillance, accelerometer, free-living conditions, treadmill walking, mobile health apps, physical activity monitoring
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Fitness Trackers, Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult, Actigraphy, Mobile Applications

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