Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors

WELK, GREGORY J., BLAIR, STEVEN N., WOOD, KHERRIN, JONES, SHELBY, THOMPSON, RAYMOND W.·2000·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
DOI 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: Accelerometry-based activity monitors offer promise for the assessment of free-living physical activity. They provide an objective record of frequency, intensity, and duration of physical activity with minimal burden on participants. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the absolute and relative validity of three contemporary activity monitors (Computer Science and Applications, Inc. [CSA], Tritrac, and Biotrainer) under both laboratory and field conditions. METHODS: Fifty-two participants completed two 30-min choreographed routines designed to simulate a variety of lifestyle physical activities. Three different treadmill paces were completed in both routines to evaluate reliability and validity under laboratory conditions. Six different lifestyle activities were also examined to evaluate the validity of the monitors under field conditions. During each routine, the activity levels of participants were monitored with the three activity monitors as well as by indirect calorimetry systems. RESULTS: The correlations between the monitors and measured VO2 were higher for treadmill activity (mean r = 0.86) compared with lifestyle activity (mean r = 0.55). Correlations among the different monitors were high for both treadmill (r = 0.86) and lifestyle activities (r = 0.70), suggesting that the monitors provide similar information under both conditions. Under laboratory conditions, the CSA yielded accurate predictions of energy expenditure (EE), whereas the Tritrac and Biotrainer tended to overestimate the EE (101-136% of measured value). The Tritrac, however, was found to have less error in individual estimates of EE. Under field conditions, all of the monitors underestimated EE (range: 42-67% of measured value). CONCLUSION: The observed differences among the monitors were attributed primarily to differences in the accuracy of the calibration equations rather than to the monitors themselves. Further research is needed to better understand how to use these devices for field-based assessments of physical activity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005768-200009001-00008

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
WELK, G. J., BLAIR, S. N., WOOD, K., JONES, S., & THOMPSON, R. W.
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2000-09
Volume
32
Issue
Supplement
Pages
S489-S497
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005768-200009001-00008
OpenAlex
W2119384593
Cited by
343
References
4
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.