The Validity of a Novel Low-Cost, Wearable Physical Activity Monitor in a Laboratory Setting Direct Original Research

Main Article Content

Andrew Newton
Ellen Glickman
Jacob Barkley

Keywords

Accelerometer, Exercise, Agreement

Abstract

Introduction: Wearable physical activity monitors are popular and may provide a more accurate data than subjective methods. The present study assessed the validity of a novel, low-cost wearable physical activity monitor (Movband 3) relative to established measures.


Methods: Participants (N = 19) completed four treadmill stages (1.5, 3.0, 4.0, 6.0 MPH) while wearing the Movband 3 and the validated Actigraph GT1M monitor. Oxygen consumption (VO2 ml/kg/min) and heart rate (beats/min) were recorded. The relationship between Movband data and established measures was assessed via Pearson’s correlations. Tests of agreement were performed for actual and Movband miles traveled.  


Results: There were large, positive, significant (p < 0.001) effect sizes for the associations between Movband counts and Actigraph counts (r = 0.72), VO2 (r = 0.59), and heart rate (r = 0.63). There was also a large, positive, significant (p < 0.001) association between actual and Movband miles (r = 0.97). However, the difference (Δ) between Movband and actual miles was greater than a null hypothesis of zero (∆ = 0.77 ± 0.45 miles or 31.8%, t = 7.4, p < 0.001).


Conclusion: While there was evidence to support the validity of the Movband 3 for the assessment of physical activity intensity this device did not provide an accurate measure of miles traveled.  

Abstract 189 | PDF Downloads 97

References

1. Thompson WR. Worldwide Survey of Fitness Trends for 2022. ACSM's Health & Fitness Journal. 2022;26(1):11-20.
2. Hills AP, Mokhtar N, Byrne NM. Assessment of physical activity and energy expenditure: an overview of objective measures. Frontiers in nutrition. 2014;1:5.
3. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 2000;71 Suppl 2:1-14.
4. Silfee VJ, Haughton CF, Jake-Schoffman DE, et al. Objective measurement of physical activity outcomes in lifestyle interventions among adults: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2018;11:74-80.
5. Yang C-C, Hsu Y-L. A Review of Accelerometry-Based Wearable Motion Detectors for Physical Activity Monitoring. Sensors. 2010;10(8):7772-7788.
6. Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2005;37(11 Suppl):S531-543.
7. Herman Hansen B, Børtnes I, Hildebrand M, Holme I, Kolle E, Anderssen SA. Validity of the ActiGraph GT1M during walking and cycling. Journal of sports sciences. 2014;32(6):510-516.
8. Chen MJ, Fan X, Moe ST. Criterion-related validity of the Borg ratings of perceived exertion scale in healthy individuals: a meta-analysis. Journal of sports sciences. 2002;20(11):873-899.
9. Hedeker D, Gibbons RD. A random-effects ordinal regression model for multilevel analysis. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):933-944.
10. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet (London, England). 1986;1(8476):307-310.
11. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological bulletin. 1992;112(1):155-159.
12. Barkley JE, Glickman E, Fennell C, Kobak M, Frank M, Farnell G. The validity of the commercially-available, low-cost, wrist-worn Movband accelerometer during treadmill exercise and free-living physical activity. Journal of sports sciences. 2019;37(7):735-740.
13. Kobak M, Fennell C, Glickman E, Farnell G, Barkley JE. Validity of a Low-Cost, Commercially-Available Accelerometer During Free-Choice Physical Activity in a Controlled Environment in Children. Journal of Exercise and Nutrition. 2018;1(2).
14. O’Driscoll R, Turicchi J, Beaulieu K, et al. How well do activity monitors estimate energy expenditure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the validity of current technologies. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2020;54(6):332.
15. Hendelman D, Miller K, Baggett C, Debold E, Freedson P. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2000;32(9 Suppl):S442-449.
16. Ham SA, Reis JP, Strath SJ, Dubose KD, Ainsworth BE. Discrepancies between methods of identifying objectively determined physical activity. Medicine and science in sports and exercise. 2007;39(1):52-58.