ArticleJMIR formative research2020
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Acute Phase Intensive Physical Activity (ACTIVE-PA) Monitoring and Education for Cardiac Patients: Pilot Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Acute Effects of Coffee Consumption on Health among Ambulatory Adults.The New England journal of medicine · 2023Trial
- Validity and reliability of inertial measurement units on gait, static balance and functional mobility performance among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- From Steps to Context: Optimizing Digital Phenotyping for Physical Activity Monitoring in Older Adults by Integrating Wearable Data and Ecological Momentary Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- ICF classification of therapeutic goals for outpatient episodes of neurorehabilitation in post-stroke and Parkinson disease.Disability and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Temporal Interactions between Maintenance of Cerebral Cortex Thickness and Physical Activity from an Individual Person Micro-Longitudinal Perspective and Implications for Precision Medicine.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Comprehensive Assessment of the Activity Level of the ICF Using Both Capacity and Performance Measures: A Case Report.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2023Article
- Implementation of Wearable Sensing Technology for Movement: Pushing Forward into the Routine Physical Rehabilitation Care Field.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000.
methodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests.
resultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m
conclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.