Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents

de Vries, Sanne I.; Bakker, Ingrid; Hopman-Rock, Marijke; Hirasing, Remy A.; van Mechelen, Willem

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.020

« Previous Next »Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 59, Issue 7 , Pages 670-680, July 2006

Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents

Sanne I. de Vries
- TNO Quality of Life, Department of Physical Activity and Health, P.O. Box 2215, 2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Body@Work, Research Centre Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-71-5181676; fax: +31-71-5181903.
Ingrid Bakker
- TNO Quality of Life, Department of Physical Activity and Health, P.O. Box 2215, 2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Body@Work, Research Centre Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Marijke Hopman-Rock
- TNO Quality of Life, Department of Physical Activity and Health, P.O. Box 2215, 2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Body@Work, Research Centre Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Remy A. Hirasing
- TNO Quality of Life, Department of Physical Activity and Health, P.O. Box 2215, 2301 CE, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Department of Social Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Willem van Mechelen
- Body@Work, Research Centre Physical Activity, Work and Health, TNO-VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, Department of Social Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Accepted 29 November 2005.

Abstract

Background and Objectives

To review the clinimetric quality of motion sensors used to assess physical activity in healthy children and adolescents (2–18 years).

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and SpycINFO. The clinimetric quality of two pedometers (Digi-Walker, Pedoboy), four one-dimensional accelerometers (LSI, Caltrac, Actiwatch, CSA/ActiGraph), and three three-dimensional accelerometers (Tritrac-R3D, RT3, Tracmor2) was evaluated and compared using a 20-item checklist.

Results

Overall, the quality of the studies (n = 35), and therefore the level of evidence for the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility of the motion sensors was modest (mean = 6.4 ± 1.6 out of 14 points). There was strong evidence for a good reproducibility of the Caltrac in adolescents (12–18 years), a poor reproducibility of the Digi-Walker in children (8–12 years), a good validity of the CSA/ActiGraph in children and adolescents (8–18 years), and a good validity of the Tritrac-R3D in children (8–12 years).

Conclusions

The CSA/ActiGraph and the Caltrac are the only motion sensors in which the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility have been examined in different age groups. Further studies of the reproducibility of motion sensors in preschool children, improvement of the quality of clinimetric studies, and evaluation of the acceptability of motion sensors are warranted.

Keywords: Accelerometer, Pedometer, Physical activity, Reproducibility, Review, Validity