Cited by 77Physical Activity and HealthStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems

Test—retest reliability of the StepWatch Activity Monitor outputs in individuals with chronic stroke

Open access
Mudge, Suzie, Stott, N. Susan·2008·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

Objective: To examine the test—retest reliability of the StepWatch Activity Monitor outputs over two periods, a week apart, in participants with stroke. Design: Test—retest reliability study over monitoring periods of one, two and three days. Setting: Participant's usual environment. Participants: Forty participants more than six months post stroke. Main measures: StepWatch outputs: total step count, number of steps at high medium and low stepping rates, sustained activity indices, peak activity index. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficients were high for all StepWatch outputs and all monitoring periods but were highest for the three-day monitoring period (0.930—0.989) and lowest for the one-day monitoring period (0.830—0.950). The coefficient of variation ranged from 6.7% to 48.7% over the monitoring periods, with higher variation shown for shorter monitoring periods. The most reliable four outputs had 95% limits of agreement between three-day periods that were less than 40%. These were total step count (±37.8%), highest step rate in 1 minute (±23.0%), highest step rate in 5 minutes (±38.6%) and peak activity index (±29.8%). The highest step rate in 1 minute was the only StepWatch output that had 95% limits of agreement less than 40% for the two-day (±31.2%) and one-day (±36.7%) monitoring periods. Conclusions: Total step count, highest step rate in 1 minute, highest step rate in 5 minutes and peak activity index have good test—retest reliability over a three-day monitoring period, with lower reliability shown by the other StepWatch outputs. In general, monitoring over one or two days is less reliable.

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 · 10.1177/0269215508092822

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Haeuber E, Shaughnessy M, Forrester LW, Coleman KL, Macko RF. Accelerometer monitoring of home-and community-based ambulatory activity after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85(12):1997-2001.
  2. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ 1996;312(7047):1654.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mudge, S., & Stott, N. S.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Mudge, Suzie
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2008-10
Volume
22
Issue
10-11
Pages
871-877
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2142316258
Cited by
77
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Auckland District Health Board
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
test-retest reliability, chronic stroke, wearable activity trackers, step count, cadence, limits of agreement
MeSH terms
Stroke Rehabilitation, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Sensitivity and Specificity, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Walking, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Recovery of Function

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