Young children’s activity and sedentary time were simultaneously measured via the Actical method (i.e., Actical accelerometer and specific cut-points) and the ActiGraph method (i.e., ActiGraph accelerometer and specific cut-points) at both 15-s and 60-s epochs to explore possible differences between these 2 measurement approaches. For 7 consecutive days, participants (n = 23) wore both the Actical and ActiGraph side-by-side on an elastic neoprene belt. Device-specific cut-points were applied. Paired sample t tests were conducted to determine the differences in participants’ daily average activity levels and sedentary time (min/h) measured by the 2 devices at 15-s and 60-s time sampling intervals. Bland-Altman plots were used to examine agreement between Actical and ActiGraph accelerometers. Regardless of epoch length, Actical accelerometers reported significantly higher rates of sedentary time (15 s: 42.7 min/h vs 33.5 min/h; 60 s: 39.4 min/h vs 27.1 min/h). ActiGraph accelerometers captured significantly higher rates of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (15 s: 9.2 min/h vs 2.6 min/h; 60 s: 8.0 min/h vs 1.27 min/h) and total physical activity (15 s: 31.7 min/h vs 22.3 min/h; 60 s: = 39.4 min/h vs 25.2 min/h) in comparison with Actical accelerometers. These results highlight the present accelerometry-related issues with interpretation of datasets derived from different monitors.
Leigh M. Vanderloo, Natascja A. Di Cristofaro, Nicole A. Proudfoot, Patricia Tucker, and Brian W. Timmons
Jessica Gorzelitz, Chloe Farber, Ronald Gangnon, and Lisa Cadmus-Bertram
Accurate assessment of physical activity remains challenging. Wearable fitness trackers are ubiquitous among consumers and represent new opportunities for measurement ( Kaewkannate & Kim, 2016 ; Lunney, Cunningham, & Eastin, 2016 ). Compared with research-grade devices like the ActiGraph, consumer
Kelli L. Cain, Edith Bonilla, Terry L. Conway, Jasper Schipperijn, Carrie M. Geremia, Alexandra Mignano, Jacqueline Kerr, and James F. Sallis
difficult to establish a nonwear criterion that correctly differentiates true sedentary behavior from nonwear time. Further complicating the issue, ActiGraph (Pensacola, FL) introduced a new line of accelerometers in 2005 (referred to as GT models) that utilized a microelectromechanical system accelerometer
Marcin Straczkiewicz, Jacek Urbanek, and Jaroslaw Harezlak
general-purpose data processing software (e.g., Matlab or R) or dedicated software provided by device manufacturer (e.g., ActiLife by ActiGraph) ( Brønd & Arvidsson, 2016 ; Skotte, Korshøj, Kristiansen, Hanisch, & Holtermann, 2014 ; Zhou et al., 2015 ). The downside of using software like Matlab or R
Katja Krustrup Pedersen, Esben Lykke Skovgaard, Ryan Larsen, Mikkel Stengaard, Søren Sørensen, and Kristian Overgaard
Accelerometry is a widely used method for assessing quantity and quality of physical activity (PA), which is essential in all PA research ( Troiano, McClain, Brychta, & Chen, 2014 ). One of the more commonly used accelerometers in PA research is the ActiGraph, and this device has most frequently
Supun Nakandala, Marta M. Jankowska, Fatima Tuz-Zahra, John Bellettiere, Jordan A. Carlson, Andrea Z. LaCroix, Sheri J. Hartman, Dori E. Rosenberg, Jingjing Zou, Arun Kumar, and Loki Natarajan
these 34 used an ActiGraph device ( Powell, Herring, Dowd, Donnelly, & Carson, 2018 ). Objective measurement of an adult’s sedentary time from hip-worn accelerometers is most often quantified using a cut-point-based threshold of <100 counts/min that is applied to the vertical axis ( Migueles et
Emma L. J. Eyre, Jason Tallis, Susie Wilson, Lee Wilde, Liam Akhurst, Rildo Wanderleys, and Michael J. Duncan
activities at specific intensities. Specifically, the ActiGraph, Actical, and Research Tracker 3 (RT3), which is an older model of the Research Tracker 6 (RT6), are the most commonly used accelerometers in physical activity research. Much research has examined the validity and reliability of different
Leila Hedayatrad, Tom Stewart, and Scott Duncan
currently the preferred method of assessing these behaviors in free-living settings. As there are many types of accelerometers available, it is of importance to investigate comparability between different devices. The ActiGraph GT3X+ (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL) accelerometer is one of the most commonly
Kayla J. Nuss, Nicholas A. Hulett, Alden Erickson, Eric Burton, Kyle Carr, Lauren Mooney, Jacob Anderson, Ashley Comstock, Ethan J. Schlemer, Lucas J. Archambault, and Kaigang Li
the wrist-worn device could be worn for 24 hr, the participants did not forget to put it on again after a night of sleep ( Troiano et al., 2014 ). ActiGraph activity monitors have been one of the most popular means of objectively measuring PA in research and clinical interventions and one of the most
Tatiana Plekhanova, Alex V. Rowlands, Tom Yates, Andrew Hall, Emer M. Brady, Melanie Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, and Charlotte L. Edwardson
; however, the three most widely used research-grade raw data accelerometer brands deployed in epidemiological studies are the Axivity (Axivity Ltd., Newcastle, United Kingdom), ActiGraph (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, FL), and GENEActiv (ActivInsights Ltd., Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom). Various
