Join us on March 2nd for an ActiGraph webinar:
Wearable Data Gone Awry: Cautionary Tales from the Clinical Research Trenches.Register Now
Validation and Comparison of ActiGraph Activity Monitors
- Added on April 22, 2011
Objective To compare activity counts from the ActiGraph GT3X to those from the ActiGraph GT1M during treadmill walking/running. A secondary aim was to develop tri-axial vector magnitude (VM3) cut-points to classify physical activity (PA) intensity.
Methods Fifty participants wore the GT3X and the GT1M on the non-dominant hip and exercised at 4 treadmill speeds (4.8, 6.4, 9.7, and 12 km·h−1). Vertical (VT) and antero-posterior (AP) activity counts (counts·min−1) as well as the vector magnitudes of the two axes (VM2) from both monitors were tested for significant differences using two-way ANOVA’s. Bland–Altman plots were used to assess agreement between activity counts from the GT3X and GT1M. Linear regression analysis between VM3 counts·min−1 and oxygen consumption data was conducted to develop VM3 cut-points for moderate, hard and very hard PA.
Results There were no significant inter-monitor differences in VT activity counts at any speed. AP and VM2 activity counts from the GT1M were significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those from the GT3X at 4.8, 9.7 and 12 km·h−1. High inter-monitor agreement was found for VT activity counts but not for AP and VM2 activity counts. VM3 cut-points for moderate, hard, and very hard PA intensities were 2690–6166, 6167–9642, >9642 counts·min−1.
Conclusion Due to the lack of congruence between the AP and VM2 activity counts from the GT1M and the GT3X, comparisons of data obtained with these two monitors should be avoided when using more than just the VT axis. VM3 cut-points may be used to classify PA in future studies.
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport