Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 191

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children's sedentary time

Open access
Ridgers, Nicola D, Salmon, Jo, Ridley, Kate, O'Connell, Eoin, Arundell, Lauren, Timperio, Anna·2012·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accelerometers have been used to determine the amount of time that children spend sedentary. However, as time spent sitting may be detrimental to health, research is needed to examine whether accelerometer sedentary cut-points reflect the amount of time children spend sitting. The aim of this study was to: a) examine agreement between ActiGraph (AG) cut-points for sedentary time and objectively-assessed periods of free-living sitting and sitting plus standing time using the activPAL (aP); and b) identify cut-points to determine time spent sitting and sitting plus standing. METHODS: Forty-eight children (54% boys) aged 8-12 years wore a waist-mounted AG and thigh-mounted aP for two consecutive school days (9-3:30 pm). AG data were analyzed using 17 cut-points between 50-850 counts·min-1 in 50 counts·min-1 increments to determine sedentary time during class-time, break time and school hours. Sitting and sitting plus standing time were obtained from the aP for these periods. Limits of agreement were computed to evaluate bias between AG50 to AG850 sedentary time and sitting and sitting plus standing time. Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analyses identified AG cut-points that maximized sensitivity and specificity for sitting and sitting plus standing time. RESULTS: The smallest mean bias between aP sitting time and AG sedentary time was AG150 for class time (3.8 minutes), AG50 for break time (-0.8 minutes), and AG100 for school hours (-5.2 minutes). For sitting plus standing time, the smallest bias was observed for AG850. ROC analyses revealed an optimal cut-point of 96 counts·min-1 (AUC = 0.75) for sitting time, which had acceptable sensitivity (71.7%) and specificity (67.8%). No optimal cut-point was obtained for sitting plus standing (AUC = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of free-living sitting time in children during school hours can be obtained using an AG cut-point of 100 counts·min-1. Higher sedentary cut-points may capture both sitting and standing time.

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 · 10.1186/1479-5868-9-15

Cites

9 of 9 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 9 references

Cited by

See all 191

Metadata

Authors
Ridgers, N. D., Salmon, J., Ridley, K., O'Connell, E., Arundell, L., & Timperio, A.
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Published
2012
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
15
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166476113
Cited by
191
References
9
FWCI
10.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children's sedentary time. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1479-5868-9-15
The paper
Ridgers, N. D., Salmon, J., Ridley, K., O'Connell, E., Arundell, L., & Timperio, A. (2012). Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children's sedentary time. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-15

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.