Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Mar;10(3):437-50.
doi: 10.1123/jpah.10.3.437.

Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: a review of methods

Affiliations
Review

Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: a review of methods

Kelli L Cain et al. J Phys Act Health. 2013 Mar.

Abstract

Background: In 2005, investigators convened by the National Cancer Institute recommended development of standardized protocols for accelerometer use and reporting decision rules in articles. A literature review was conducted to document accelerometer methods and decision rule reporting in youth physical activity articles from 2005-2010.

Methods: Nine electronic databases identified 273 articles that measured physical activity and/or sedentary behavior using the most-used brand of accelerometer (ActiGraph). Six key methods were summarized by age group (preschool, children, and adolescents) and trends over time were examined.

Results: Studies using accelerometers more than doubled from 2005-2010. Methods included 2 ActiGraph models, 6 epoch lengths, 6 nonwear definitions, 13 valid day definitions, 8 minimum wearing day thresholds, 12 moderate-intensity physical activity cut points, and 11 sedentary cut points. Child studies showed the most variation in methods and a trend toward more variability in cut points over time. Decision rule reporting improved, but only 54% of papers reported on all methods.

Conclusion: The increasing diversity of methods used to process and score accelerometer data for youth precludes comparison of results across studies. Decision rule reporting is inconsistent, and trends indicate declining standardization of methods. A methodological research agenda and consensus process are proposed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 1.
Results of the literature search
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 2.
Trends in accelerometer cut points (MVPA) reported in children’s studies from 2005–2010
FIGURE 3.
FIGURE 3.
Trends in accelerometer cut points (MVPA) reported in adolescent studies from 2005–2010
FIGURE 4.
FIGURE 4.
Methods not reported in papers from 2005–2010 (% of papers not reporting)
FIGURE 5.
FIGURE 5.
Trends in percent of youth accelerometer papers with “complete” versus “poor” reporting scoresa from 2005–2010

References

    1. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: Status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71:S1–S14. - PubMed
    1. Sirard JR, Pate RR. Physical activity assessment in children and adolescents. Sports Med 2001;31:439–454. - PubMed
    1. Corder K, Ekelund U, Steele RM, Wareham NJ, Brage S. Assessment of physical activity in youth. J Appl Physiol 2008;105:977–987. - PubMed
    1. Oliver M, Schofield GM, Kolt GS. Physical activity in preschoolers: understanding prevalence and measurement issues. Sports Med 2007;37:1045–1070. - PubMed
    1. Reilly JJ, Penpraze V, Hislop J, Davies G, Grant S, Paton JY. Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: review with new data. Arch Dis Child 2008; 93:614–619. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources