Cited by 54Physical Activity and HealthStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Step count accuracy and reliability of two activity tracking devices in people after stroke

Schaffer, Samuel D., Holzapfel, Simon D., Fulk, George, Bosch, Pamela Rogers·2017·Physiotherapy Theory and Practice

Abstract

Background/Purpose: The increasing popularity of activity tracking devices presents an opportunity to monitor physical activity in patients after stroke. We sought to determine the reliability and accuracy of the Garmin Vivofit and Fitbit Zip for adults after stroke. Methods: Twenty-four participants with stroke-induced hemiparesis wore a Fitbit Zip on the nonparetic hip and Garmin Vivofits on both wrists during a 6-minute walk test to determine the accuracy of the devices against video-determined step counts. Participants also wore the devices during two trials of exactly 50 steps to determine the reliability of the devices. Results: Fitbit Zip showed excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.974) and accuracy (4.2% error) for participants who walked faster than 0.35 m/s. Garmin Vivofit (nonparetic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.964) but poor accuracy (≤−16.0%) for all participants. Garmin Vivofit (paretic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.858) and accuracy (−4.0% error) for faster walkers (>0.48 m/s) but poor accuracy (−68.2%) for slower walkers. Conclusion: Fitbit Zip was more accurate and reliable for persons with stroke than Garmin Vivofit, but slower walking speeds were associated with greater undercounting of steps for both devices. The Fitbit Zip is appropriate for counting steps in adults poststroke who range from household to community ambulators.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09593985.2017.1354412

Cites

32 of 32 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
Schaffer, S. D., Holzapfel, S. D., Fulk, G., & Bosch, P. R.
Affiliations
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Clarkson University (US)
Corresponding author
Bosch, Pamela Rogers
Venue
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice
Published
2017-08-04
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
788-796
ISSN
  • 0959-3985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5040
OpenAlex
W2743689649
Cited by
54
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Physiotherapy Theory and Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Northern Arizona University (1002492)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Keywords
wearable activity trackers, step count accuracy, device reliability, stroke, hemiparesis, wearable sensors, walking speed, physical activity monitoring, paretic side
MeSH terms
Walk Test, Fitness Trackers, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disability Evaluation, Equipment Design, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paresis, Predictive Value of Tests, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Walking, Stroke, Mobility Limitation, Actigraphy

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