Cited by 468Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

The validity of consumer-level, activity monitors in healthy adults worn in free-living conditions: a cross-sectional study

Open access
Ferguson, Ty, Rowlands, Alex V, Olds, Tim, Maher, Carol·2015·International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Technological advances have seen a burgeoning industry for accelerometer-based wearable activity monitors targeted at the consumer market. The purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity of a selection of consumer-level accelerometer-based activity monitors. METHODS: 21 healthy adults wore seven consumer-level activity monitors (Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Jawbone UP, Misfit Shine, Nike Fuelband, Striiv Smart Pedometer and Withings Pulse) and two research-grade accelerometers/multi-sensor devices (BodyMedia SenseWear, and ActiGraph GT3X+) for 48-hours. Participants went about their daily life in free-living conditions during data collection. The validity of the consumer-level activity monitors relative to the research devices for step count, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sleep and total daily energy expenditure (TDEE) was quantified using Bland-Altman analysis, median absolute difference and Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: All consumer-level activity monitors correlated strongly (r > 0.8) with research-grade devices for step count and sleep time, but only moderately-to-strongly for TDEE (r = 0.74-0.81) and MVPA (r = 0.52-0.91). Median absolute differences were generally modest for sleep and steps (<10% of research device mean values for the majority of devices) moderate for TDEE (<30% of research device mean values), and large for MVPA (26-298%). Across the constructs examined, the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse performed most strongly. CONCLUSIONS: In free-living conditions, the consumer-level activity monitors showed strong validity for the measurement of steps and sleep duration, and moderate valid for measurement of TDEE and MVPA. Validity for each construct ranged widely between devices, with the Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip and Withings Pulse being the strongest performers.

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/s12966-015-0201-9

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Fitbit One, Zip and Charge HR, Jawbone Up, LumoBack, and Withings Pulse have all demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for step count (ICC >.90).

    “Fitbit One, Zip and Charge HR, Jawbone Up, LumoBack, and Withings Pulse have all demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for step count (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] >.90) [78-80]”

    From Consumer-based wearable activity trackers increase physical activity participation: systematic review and meta-analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [78]

    Table 2 (Results; page unavailable) reports step-count ICCs above .90 for Fitbit One and Zip, Jawbone UP, and Withings Pulse. Those ICCs compare the monitors with reference devices; they are not test-retest reliability results. The Methods list neither Fitbit Charge HR nor LumoBack among the devices tested. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Nine studies (22 comparisons) examined energy expenditure in free-living settings compared with doubly labeled water and accelerometry.

    “Nine studies (22 comparisons) examined energy expenditure in free-living settings compared with the criterion measures of doubly labeled water [104] and accelerometry [29,49,79,101,131,172,174,175].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferguson, T., Rowlands, A. V., Olds, T., & Maher, C.
Affiliations
University of South Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Maher, Carol
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Published
2015-03-27
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
42-42
ISSN
1479-5868 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097760682
Cited by
468
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 56 · 2015: 10
FWCI
52.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
wearable accelerometers, convergent validity, step count, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, sleep duration, total energy expenditure, Fitbit, free-living conditions
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Energy Metabolism, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Sleep, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Monitoring, Ambulatory, Young Adult, Actigraphy, Accelerometry

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