Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2012; 33(12): 994-999
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1312580
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Intermonitor Variability of GT3X Accelerometer

A. Santos-Lozano
1   Department of Physioteraphy and Nursing, Universidad de Zaragoza, Huesca, Spain
,
G. Torres-Luque
2   Faculty of Science of Education, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
,
P. J. Marín
3   Laboratory of Physiology, European University Miguel de Cervantes, Valladolid, Spain
,
J. R. Ruiz
4   Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Unit for Preventive Nutrition, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden
5   Department of Physical Education and Sport, School of Sport Sciences University of Granada, Granada, Spain
,
A. Lucia
6   Physiology, Universidad Europea De Madrid, Madrid, Spain
,
N. Garatachea
1   Department of Physioteraphy and Nursing, Universidad de Zaragoza, Huesca, Spain
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 12 March 2012

Publication Date:
12 July 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to assess the inter-monitor reliability of the tri-axial GT3X Actigraph accelerometer over a range of physical activities (PA). This device collects motion data on each of the vertical (Y), horizontal right-left (X), and horizontal front-back (Z) axes and also calculates the vector summed value √X2+Y2+Z2 known as ‘vector magnitude’ (VM). 8 GT3X accelerometers were worn at the same time by the same participant. Accelerometers were placed back-to-front, all facing forward and in sets of 4 securely taped together, attached to a belt and allocating each block above either left or right hip at waist level. Inter-monitor reliability was assessed during 6 conditions: rest, walking (4 and 6 km·h − 1), running (8 and 10 km·h − 1) and repeated sit-to-stand (40 times·min − 1). The intra-class correlation coefficients were high for X, Y and Z axes (i. e., all ≥0.925) and for VM (≥0.946). In conclusion, we found good inter-instrument reliability of the GT3X accelerometer across all planes, yet our results also suggest that the X and Z axes do not provide further benefits over the ‘traditional’ Y-axis to assess the movement in typical PA.

Key words

physical activity - activity assessment - accelerometry - motion sensor
 

  • References

  • 1 Atkinson G, Davison RC, Nevill AM. Performance characteristics of gas analysis systems: what we know and what we need to know. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26 (Suppl. 01) S2-S10
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Bassett Jr DR. Validity and reliability issues in objective monitoring of physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71: S30-S36
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476) 307-310
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bouten CV, Sauren AA, Verduin M, Janssen JD. Effects of placement and orientation of body-fixed accelerometers on the assessment of energy expenditure during walking. Med Biol Eng Comput 1997; 35: 50-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Brage S, Wedderkopp N, Franks PW, Andersen LB, Froberg K. Reexamination of validity and reliability of the CSA monitor in walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 1447-1454
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Chen KY, Bassett Jr DR. The technology of accelerometry-based activity monitors: current and future. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: S490-S500
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Engineering/Marketing A . ActiLife Users Manual. Pensacola, FL: ActiGraph; 2009
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Fairweather SC, Reilly JJ, Grant S, Whittaker A, Paton JY. Using the computer science and applications (CSA) activity monitor in preschool children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 1999; 11: 413-420
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Garatachea N, Cavalcantil-Almeida E, De Paz JA. Methods for quantifying energy expenditure and physical activity. Archivos de Medicina del Deporte 2003; 96: 331-337
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Garatachea N, Torres Luque G, Gonzalez Gallego J. Physical activity and energy expenditure measurements using accelerometers in older adults. Nutr Hosp 2010; 25: 224-230
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist 1979; 6: 65-70
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Howe CA, Staudenmayer JW, Freedson PS. Accelerometer prediction of energy expenditure: vector magnitude versus vertical axis. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 2199-2206
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Janz KF. Physical activity in epidemiology: moving from questionnaire to objective measurement. Br J Sports Med 2006; 40: 191-192
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 John D, Tyo B, Bassett DR. Comparison of four ActiGraph accelerometers during walking and running. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42: 368-374
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Powell SM, Jones DI, Rowlands AV. Technical variability of the RT3 accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 1773-1778
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Powell SM, Rowlands AV. Intermonitor variability of the RT3 accelerometer during typical physical activities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Rothney MP, Apker GA, Song Y, Chen KY. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. J Appl Physiol 2008; 105: 1091-1097
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Trost SG, Ward DS, Moorehead SM, Watson PD, Riner W, Burke JR. Validity of the computer science and applications (CSA) activity monitor in children. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: 629-633
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Tudor-Locke CE, Myers AM. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med 2001; 31: 91-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ward DS, Evenson KR, Vaughn A, Rodgers AB, Troiano RP. Accelerometer use in physical activity: best practices and research recommendations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: S582-S588
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Welk GJ. Principles of design and analyses for the calibration of accelerometry-based activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005; 37: S501-S511
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Welk GJ, Blair SN, Wood K, Jones S, Thompson RW. A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: S489-S497
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar