Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (65)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KLESGES, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by PHELEY, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by KLESGES, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by PHELEY, A. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 122, No. 3: 400-410
Copyright © 1985 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

research-article

A VALIDATION OF TWO MOTION SENSORS IN THE PREDICTION OF CHILD AND ADULT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS

ROBERT C. KLESGES 1, LISA M. KLBSGES, ANNE M. SWENSON and ALFRED M. PHELEY

Programs in Health and Behavior, Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105

Send reprint requests to Dr. Robert C. Klesges at this address.

The authors sought to assess the reliability and validity of two motion activity sensors in the prediction of observed physical activity levels in adults and children by means of two studies at North Dakota State University in Fargo, North Dakota. In study 1, 50 adults were observed in fall 1984 for one hour of recreational activity while they simultaneously wore two motion sensors: an activity counter (i.e., LSI Moving Activity Monitor (GMM Electronics Inc., Verona, PA)) and an electronic accelerometer (i.e., Caltrac Personal Activity Computer (Hemokinetics, Inc., Vienna, VA)). The results indicated that both the activity counter (r=0.65) and the accelerometer (r=0.69) strongly correlated to observed physical activity levels. The two motion sensors also were highly correlated to each other (r=0.83). A correlation of self-reports of time spent in various types of physical activity to observed physical activity ranged from 0.21 to 0.88 (mean=0.60). Study 2 evaluated these same two sensors in winter 1984 in 30 preschool children observed in a freeplay situation. Results of this study indicated very modest relationships between observed physical activity levels and accelerometer readings (r=0.35) and activity counter readings (r=0.40). The two motion sensors intercorrelated at very modest levels (r=0.42). The results indicate that while both motion sensors closely corresponded to observed levels of physical activity in adults, neither sensor correlated substantively to observed levels of physical activity in children. Implications for validating and utilizing these sensors in epidemiologic research are discussed.

epidemiologic methods; exertion; physical fitness

1Current address: Center for Applied Psychological Research, Department of Psychology, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN 38152


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
S. B Going, S. Levin, J. Harrell, D. Stewart, L. Kushi, C. E Cornell, S. Hunsberger, C. Corbin, and J. Sallis
Physical activity assessment in American Indian schoolchildren in the Pathways study
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, April 1, 1999; 69 (4): 788S - 795S.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
K. Y. Chen and M. Sun
Improving energy expenditure estimation by using a triaxial accelerometer
J Appl Physiol, December 1, 1997; 83(6): 2112 - 2122.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
R. R. Recker, K. M. Davies, S. M. Hinders, R. P. Heaney, M. R. Stegman, and D. B. Kimmel
Bone Gain in Young Adult Women
JAMA, November 4, 1992; 268(17): 2403 - 2408.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.