Criterion validity for step counting in four consumer-grade physical activity monitors among older adults with and without rollators

Rasmus Tolstrup Larsen; Christoffer Brun Korfitsen; Carsten Bogh Juhl; Henning Boje Andersen; Henning Langberg; Jan Christensen

doi:10.1186/s11556-019-0235-0

Criterion validity for step counting in four consumer-grade physical activity monitors among older adults with and without rollators

Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2020 Jan 3:17:1. doi: 10.1186/s11556-019-0235-0. eCollection 2020.

Authors

Rasmus Tolstrup Larsen¹, Christoffer Brun Korfitsen¹, Carsten Bogh Juhl^{2

3}, Henning Boje Andersen⁴, Henning Langberg¹, Jan Christensen^{5

6}

Affiliations

¹ 1Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, CopenRehab, Section of Social Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Gothersgade 160, 3rd floor, 1123 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
² 2Research Unit of Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
³ Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark.
⁴ 4Technical University of Denmark, DTU Management Engineering Inst, Diplomvej 372, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark.
⁵ 5Department of Occupational- and Physiotherapy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
⁶ National Centre for Rehabilitation and Palliative Care, University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Nyborg, Denmark.

Abstract

Background: Few studies have investigated the measurement properties of consumer-grade physical activity monitors (PAMs) in older adults. Therefore, we investigated the criterion validity of consumer-grade PAMs in older adults and whether the measurement properties differed between older adults with and without rollators and whether worn on the hip or at the wrist.

Methods: Consumer-grade PAMs were eligible for inclusion in this study if they: 1) could be fastened at the hip as well as on the wrist, 2) were simple in function and design and thus easy to use for participants with minimal technical skills, 3) included step-counting as outcome measure and 4) were powered by a button cell battery. Participants performed self-paced walking for six minutes while two physiotherapists counted their steps with a click-counter. The average of the two counts was used as criterion. The participants wore 16 monitors, four located bilaterally on both hips and wrists. Our prior expectation was that all monitors would have at least moderate criterion validity for all participants, good criterion validity for participants walking without a rollator and poor criterion validity for participants walking with a rollator.

Results: Four physical activity monitors were included in this study; Misfit Shine, Nokia GO, Jawbone UP Move and Garmin Vivofit 3. A total of 103 older adults participated.Nokia GO was excluded from this study due to technical issues. Therefore, we present results on the frequency of data loss, ICC (1, 2) and percentage measurement error for Misfit Shine, Garmin Vivofit 3 and Jawbone UP Move located on four different positions.

Conclusions: The hip-worn PAMs did not differ significantly in terms of measurement error or criterion validity. Wrist-worn monitors cannot adequately measure number of steps in a population of older adults using rollators. The hip-worn PAMs were superior to wrist-worn PAMs among older adults with and without rollators.

Keywords: Physical activity monitors; Technology; Validity; Walking.