Validity of 2 Devices for Measuring Steps Taken by Older Adults in Assisted-Living Facilities
Abstract
Background: This 2-part study examined validity of selected motion sensors for assessing physical activity in older adults residing in assisted-living communities. Methods: Twenty-one older adults (mean age = 78.6 ± 13.1 years) wore the StepWatch 3 Step Activity Monitor (SW3) and the Yamax Digi-Walker SW-200 pedometer (DW). Part I compared accuracy of these devices for measuring steps taken over 161 m. Part II compared devices over a 1-day (24-hour) period. Results: In part I, the DW recorded 51.9% (r2 = –.08, P = .75) and the SW3 recorded 102.6% (r2 = .99, P < .001) of steps. In part II, the DW measured significantly fewer steps (1587 ± 1057 steps) than did the SW3 (6420 ± 3180 steps). Conclusions: The SW3 pedometer was more accurate in counting steps and recorded higher 24-hour step counts than the DW pedometer. Thus, the SW3 is a valid research instrument for monitoring activity in the assisted-living population.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Most waist-mounted pedometers are very accurate at speeds of 3.0 mph and above, but accuracy declines at slower speeds; at 2.0 mph they may capture 75% of steps, and at 1.0 mph they hardly register steps.
“Studies have demonstrated that most waist-mounted pedometers are very accurate at speeds of 3.0 mph (80.4 m/min) and above, but their accuracy declines at slower speeds. At 2.0 mph (54 m/min) they may capture 75% of steps, and at 1.0 mph they hardly register steps at all.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [17]
Waist-mounted pedometers are notoriously inaccurate in older adults in assisted-care settings who walk with a slow, shuffling gait.
“Thus, waist-mounted pedometers are notoriously inaccurate in older adults in assisted-care settings, who walk with a slow, shuffling gait [17].”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [17]
The main sources of error for waist-worn spring-levered pedometers are slow walking speeds and obesity, both causing underestimation of steps.
“The main sources of error for this class of devices are slow walking speeds and obesity, which both result in underestimation of steps.”
From Step Counting: A Review of Measurement Considerations and Health-Related Applications (2017) · cites this paper as [17]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 19 · Cited by 62
- Authors
- Bergman, R. J., Bassett, D. R., & Klein, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Kentucky Wesleyan College (US)
- ORCID
- Bassett, David R.
- Venue
- Journal of Physical Activity and Health
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- S166-S175
- ISSN
- 1543-3080 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-5474
- OpenAlex
- W2133152359
- Cited by
- 62
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 4.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Physical Activity and Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Context-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Keywords
- pedometers, step count accuracy, physical activity measurement, older adults, assisted living, device validity
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Nursing Homes, Reproducibility of Results, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Assisted Living Facilities
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
