Cited by 124Physical Activity and HealthContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsPhysical Education and Training Studies

Protocols for evaluating equivalency of accelerometry-based activity monitors

WELK, GREGORY J., MCCLAIN, JAMES, AINSWORTH, BARBARA E.·2012·Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Abstract

A wide array of accelerometer-based activity monitors has been developed to facilitate objective monitoring of physical activity behaviors, but it has proven difficult to equate outputs from different monitors. On the surface, commercially available monitors seem to be performing the same basic task-monitoring total body acceleration. However, differences in sensor properties and internal data processing have made it difficult to directly compare output from different monitors. In recent years, many new competing technologies have been released into the market, compounding the challenge of evaluating monitor equivalency and the relative strengths and limitations of different monitors. To advance physical activity assessment and improve our ability to compare results across studies using different monitors, it is important to conduct functional equivalency studies in a standardized and systematic way. This article summarizes issues associated with monitor equivalency and proposes methods for standardization and quality control in future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1249/mss.0b013e3182399d8f

Cites

23 of 23 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
WELK, G. J., MCCLAIN, J., & AINSWORTH, B. E.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2012-01
Volume
44
Issue
1S
Pages
S39-S49
ISSN
0195-9131 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2323933728
Cited by
124
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (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 › Physical Education and Training Studies
Keywords
accelerometer, wearable activity trackers, physical activity measurement, standardization, quality control, sensor characteristics, data processing
MeSH terms
Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Motor Activity, Quality Control

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