Limits...
Validity of smartphone pedometer applications.

Orr K, Howe HS, Omran J, Smith KA, Palmateer TM, Ma AE, Faulkner G - BMC Res Notes (2015)

Bottom Line: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)].The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures.Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. krystn.orr@mail.utoronto.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer).

Participants: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)].

Methods: Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures.

Results: Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer.

Conclusions: Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Percent error at each treadmill speed by device compared to the visual count
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4666074&req=5

Fig3: Percent error at each treadmill speed by device compared to the visual count

Mentions: Percent error scores were also computed to measure the consistency of each application and pedometer. Percent errors were graphed at each speed to illustrate either underestimation (<−10 %), exact (±10 %), or overestimation (>+10 %) of counts compared to the observed (Fig. 3).Fig. 3


Validity of smartphone pedometer applications.

Orr K, Howe HS, Omran J, Smith KA, Palmateer TM, Ma AE, Faulkner G - BMC Res Notes (2015)

Percent error at each treadmill speed by device compared to the visual count
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4666074&req=5

Fig3: Percent error at each treadmill speed by device compared to the visual count
Mentions: Percent error scores were also computed to measure the consistency of each application and pedometer. Percent errors were graphed at each speed to illustrate either underestimation (<−10 %), exact (±10 %), or overestimation (>+10 %) of counts compared to the observed (Fig. 3).Fig. 3

Bottom Line: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)].The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures.Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. krystn.orr@mail.utoronto.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer).

Participants: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)].

Methods: Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures.

Results: Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer.

Conclusions: Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus