Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
Published: 2018-06-30

Convergent Validity of a Consumer-Grade Accelerometer with a Research-Grade Pedometer in a Physical Education Setting

Western Carolina University, 103 Reid Building, Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA.
Western Carolina University, 103 Reid Building, Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA
Western Carolina University, 103 Reid Building, Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA.
Accelerometer Pedometer Physical Education Activity Monitor

Abstract

The cost of activity monitors has substantially reduced in recent years, making them more feasible for use in physical education programs. This study examined the convergent validity of the consumer-grade Movband activity monitor with the research-grade NL-2000 pedometer. The NL-2000 was chosen as the criterion unit because it is unaffected by BMI, pedometer tilt, or waist circumference, and has been recommended for use in research [1]. One hundred and eleven elementary school aged children (53 boys, 58 girls; 9.2 ± 0.7 yr.) from three physical education classes wore an NL-2000 on their right hip and a Movband on each wrist during a 30 minute class in which participants walked or ran on a hiking trail. A repeated measures ANOVA of mean steps indicated a significant difference (p< .001) between the NL-2000 (2411.74 ± 514.87) and the Movband worn on either wrist (left= 1554.33 ± 340.81, right= 1532.26 ± 329.76). Pearson product-moment correlations indicated that NL-2000 steps and Moves were significantly and positively correlated (p< .001; left= .79, right= .85). The correlation coefficient between left and right wrists was .87. In general, the Movband can provide reasonable estimates of physical activity for physical education teachers.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. S. E. Crouter, P. L. Schneider, M. Karabulut, D. R. Jr. Bassett, Validity of 10 electronic pedometers for measuring steps, distance, and energy cost, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 35 (2003) 1455-1460.
  2. S. Fairclough, G. Stratton, Improving healthenhancing physical activity in girls' physical education, Health Education Research, 20 (2005) 448-457.
  3. D.M. Bravata, C. Smith-Spangler, V. Sundaram, A.L. Gienger, N. Lin, R. Lewis, C.D. Stave, I. Olkin, J.R. Sirard, Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: A systematic review, Journal for the American Medical Association, 19 (2007) 2296-2304.
  4. R. P. Pangrazi, A. Beighle, C. Sidman, (2002) Pedometer Power, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL, United States.
  5. C. F. Morgan, R. P. Pangrazi, A. Beighle, Using Pedometers to Promote Physical Activity in Physical Education, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 7 (2003) 33-38.
  6. S. G. Trost, K. L. McIver, R. R. Pate, Conducting Accelerometer-Based Activity Assessments in Field-Based Research, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37 (2005) S531-S543.
  7. J. Comstock, 19M fitness wearables in use today, to triple by 2018. Retrieved from www.mobihealthnews.com on May 4, 2017
  8. J. Menickelli, M. Troy, T. Watterson, C. Cooper, D. Grube, Activity. Monitor Accuracy in Assessing Caloric Expenditure in Obese Adults. Presented at the Society of Health and Physical Educators Convention (formerly AAHPERD), Seattle, WA. (2015, March).
  9. J. Takacs, C.L. Pollock, J.R. Guenther, M. Bahar, C. Napier, M.A. Hunt, Validation of the Fitbit One activity monitor device during treadmill walking, Journal of science and medicine in sport, 17 (2014) 496-500.
  10. S. A. Ham, J.P. Reid, S.J. Strath, K.D. Dubose, B.E. Ainswoth, Discrepancies between methods of identifying objectively determined physical activity, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 39 (2007) 52- 58.
  11. A. Newton, Validity of a Commerciallyavailable, Low-cost, Wrist-mounted Accelerometer in a Laboratory and Free-living Environment, Unpublished Dissertation, Kent State University (2016).
  12. D. Hendelman, K. Miller, C. Baggett, E. Debold, P. Freedson, Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32 (2000) S442- 449.
  13. G.J. Welk, S.N. Blair, K. Wood, S. Jones, R. W. Thompson, A comparative evaluation of three accelerometry-based physical activity monitors, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32 (2000) S489-497.
  14. G. Xiangli, C. Yu-Lin, A. Jackson, T. Zhang, Impact of a Pedometer-based goal-setting Intervention on Children’s Motivation, Motor Competence, and Physical Activity in Physical Education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23 (2018) 54-65.
  15. S.E. Crouter, P.L. Schneider, D.R. Jr, Bassett, Spring-levered versus piezoelectric pedometer accuracy in overweight and obese adults, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37 (2005) 1673-1679.
  16. D.R. Bassett, Jr., A.L. Cureton, B.E. Ainsworth, Measurement of daily walking distance questionnaire verses pedometer, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 32 (2000) 1018-1023.
  17. B.M. Eveland-Sayers, J.L. Caputo, & R. S. Farley, Validation of the New Lifestyles-2000 Activity Monitor in Measuring Caloric Expenditure, International Journal of Fitness, 2 (2007) 25-32.

How to Cite

Menickelli, J., Grube, D. P., & Lowell, S. (2018). Convergent Validity of a Consumer-Grade Accelerometer with a Research-Grade Pedometer in a Physical Education Setting. International Journal of Physical Education, Fitness and Sports, 7(2), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.26524/ijpefs1823