Cited by 516

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field

HENDELMAN, D., MILLER, K., BAGGETT, C., DEBOLD, E., FREEDSON, P.·2000·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

Purpose This study was undertaken to examine the validity of accelerometry in assessing moderate intensity physical activity in the field and to evaluate the metabolic cost of various recreational and household activities. Methods Twenty-five subjects completed four bouts of overground walking at a range of self-selected speeds, played two holes of golf, and performed indoor (window washing, dusting, vacuuming) and outdoor (lawn mowing, planting shrubs) household tasks. Energy expenditure was measured using a portable metabolic system, and motion was recorded using a Yamax Digiwalker pedometer (walking only), a Computer Science and Application, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer, and a Tritrac accelerometer. Correlations between accelerometer counts and energy cost were examined. In addition, individual equations to predict METs from counts were developed from the walking data and applied to the other activities to compare the relationships between counts and energy cost. Results Observed MET levels differed from values reported in the Compendium of Physical Activities, although all activities fell in the moderate intensity range. Relationships between counts and METs were stronger for walking (CSA, r = 0.77; Tritrac, r = 0.89) than for all activities combined (CSA, r = 0.59; Tritrac, r = 0.62). Metabolic costs of golf and the household activities were underestimated by 30-60% based on the equations derived from level walking. Conclusion The count versus METs relationship for accelerom…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00002

Cites

3 of 3 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Bouten, 1996, J Appl Physiol, 81, 1019, 10.1152/jappl.1996.81.2.1019 · DOI
  2. Bouten, 1994, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 26, 1516, 10.1249/00005768-199412000-00016 · DOI
  3. Bray, 1994, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 26, 1524, 10.1249/00005768-199412000-00017 · DOI
  4. Eston, 1998, J Appl Physiol, 84, 362, 10.1152/jappl.1998.84.1.362 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Fehling, 1999, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 31, 171, 10.1097/00005768-199901000-00026 · DOI
  6. Fogelholm, 1998, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30, 1191, 10.1097/00005768-199808000-00002 · DOI
  7. Freedson, 1998, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30, 777, 10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Lee, 1996, Exerc Sport Sci Rev, 24, 35, 10.1249/00003677-199600240-00007 · DOI
  9. Matthews, 1995, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 27, 1071, 10.1249/00005768-199507000-00017 · DOI
  10. Melanson, 1995, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 27, 934, 10.1249/00005768-199506000-00021 · DOI
  11. Melanson, 1996, Can J Appl Physiol, 21, 109, 10.1139/h96-010 · DOI
  12. Sherman, 1998, Int J Sports Med, 19, 43, 10.1055/s-2007-971878 · DOI
  13. Trost, 1998, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 30, 629, 10.1097/00005768-199804000-00023 · DOI
  14. Welk, 1995, Res Q Exerc Sport, 66, 202, 10.1080/02701367.1995.10608834 · DOI
  15. Wideman, 1996, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 28, 509, 10.1097/00005768-199604000-00017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
HENDELMAN, D., MILLER, K., BAGGETT, C., DEBOLD, E., & FREEDSON, P.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2000-09
Volume
32
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S442-S449
ISSN
0195-9131
Cited by
516
References
3
Language
en

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