Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRidley, Kate
dc.contributor.authorRidgers, N
dc.contributor.authorSalmon, J
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-08T23:57:22Z
dc.date.available2016-11-08T23:57:22Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citationRidley K, Ridgers ND, Salmon J. Criterion validity of the activPALTM and ActiGraph for assessing children’s sitting and standing time in a school classroom setting. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2016;13:75. doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0402-x.en
dc.identifier.issn1479-5868
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2328/36635
dc.descriptionOpen AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en
dc.description.abstractBackground Few studies have investigated the accuracy of the ActiGraph (AG) GTX3 accelerometer for assessing children’s sitting and standing time. The activPAL (aP) has an inclinometer function that enables it to distinguish between sitting/lying and standing; however, its accuracy for assessing sitting and standing in older children is unknown. This study validated the accuracy of these devices for estimating sitting and standing time in a school classroom against a criterion measure of direct observation (DO). Findings Forty children in grades 5–7 wore both devices while being video recorded during two school lessons. AG and aP data were simultaneously collected in 15-s epochs. Individual participant DO and aP data were recorded as total time spent sitting/lying, standing and stepping. AG data were converted into time spent sitting and standing using previously established cut-points. Compared with DO, the aP underestimated sitting time (mean bias = -1.9 min, 95 % LoA = -8.9 to 5.2 min) and overestimated standing time (mean bias = 1.8 min, 95 % LoA = -9.6 to 13.3 min). The best-performing AG cut-point across both sitting and standing (<75 counts/15 s) was more accurate than the aP, underestimating sitting time (mean bias = -0.8 min, 95 % LoA = -10.5 to 9.9 min) and standing time (mean bias = -0.4 min, 95 % LoA = -9.8 to 9.1 min), but was less precise as evidenced by wider LoAs and poorer correlations with DO (sitting r = 0.86 aP vs 0.80 AG; standing r = 0.78 aP vs 0.60 AG). Conclusions The aP demonstrated good accuracy and precision for assessing free-living sitting and standing time in classroom settings. The AG was most accurate using a cut-point of < 75 counts/15 s. Further studies should validate the monitors in settings with greater inter- and intra-individual variation in movement patterns.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen
dc.rightsCopyright © The Author(s). 2016en
dc.titleCriterion validity of the activPALTM and ActiGraph for assessing children’s sitting and standing time in a school classroom settingen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-016-0402-x.en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record