Cited by 201Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Validity and Reproducibility of Motion Sensors in Youth: A Systematic Update

DE VRIES, SANNE I., VAN HIRTUM, HELMI W. J. E. M., BAKKER, INGRID, HOPMAN-ROCK, MARIJKE, HIRASING, REMY A., VAN MECHELEN, WILLEM·2009·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review recently published studies on the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility of motion sensors used to assess physical activity in healthy children and adolescents (2-18 yr). METHODS: On October 2004, a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO was performed. This search has been updated on October 2007. In this update, the clinimetric quality of three pedometers (Digi-Walker, Walk4Life, and Sun TrekLINQ) and nine accelerometers (ActiGraph, BioTrainer, StepWatch Activity Monitor, Actiwatch, Actical, Tritrac-R3D, RT3, ActivTracer, and Mini-Motionlogger) has been evaluated and compared using a checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-two recently published clinimetric studies have been reviewed. All 12 motion sensors have been validated in youth in one or more studies. There is strong evidence for moderate validity of the StepWatch in children and adolescents (4-18 yr) and moderate to good validity of the ActiGraph in preschool children and young children (2-8 yr). There is less evidence for the reproducibility and feasibility of the 12 motion sensors. Strong evidence exists for good reproducibility of the ActiGraph in preschool children (2-4 yr). CONCLUSION: Compared to the review performed in 2004, there is increased evidence for the clinimetric quality of pedometers and accelerometers in youth. Most motion sensors seem reproducible, valid, and feasible in assessing physical activity in youth.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0b013e31818e5819

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DE VRIES, S. I., VAN HIRTUM, H. W. J. E. M., BAKKER, I., HOPMAN-ROCK, M., HIRASING, R. A., & VAN MECHELEN, W.
Affiliations
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2009-04
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
818-827
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116049436
Cited by
201
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 17
FWCI
2.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
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 › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
motion sensors, accelerometer, pedometers, physical activity measurement, children and adolescents, validity, reproducibility, feasibility, ActiGraph, preschool children
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Movement, Validation Studies as Topic

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