ArticlePloS one2021
Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic review of prolonged posture monitoring with accelerometer-based wearable sensors.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for frailty based on wearable device measurements.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Sedentary behaviour and activity patterns of older adults in an acute hospital setting: An exploratory study.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2026Article
- Study protocol for the Champaign-Urbana population study.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2026Article
- Comparing the Accuracy of Different Wearable Activity Monitors in Patients With Lung Cancer and Providing Initial Recommendations: Protocol for a Pilot Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Towards the Real-World Analysis of Lumbar Spine Standing Posture in Individuals with Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Observational
- Continuous Monitoring of Head Turns: Compliance, Kinematics, and Reliability of Wearable Sensing.IEEE transactions on neural systems and rehabilitation engineering : a publication of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society · 2025Article
- Harmonizing measurement tools: examining the concurrent validity of the Daily Activity Behaviors Questionnaire compared to the ActiGraph to assess 24-hour movement behaviors among adults.BMC public health · 2024Observational
- The use of accelerometers to improve estimation of the thermic effect of food in whole room calorimetry studies.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2024Article
- Relationship between rest-activity rhythms and cardiorespiratory fitness in middle-aged workers: a cross-sectional study with non-parametric analysis using accelerometers worn on the thigh.BMC public health · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ActiGraph and activPAL monitors are the most frequently used thigh-worn devices to measure motion and posture, but the criterion validity to measure sitting, standing and postural transfer in the office setting is not known. Research question: To examine the criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL activity monitors in repeatedly measuring a variety of different postures and motion in the office setting.
methodsTwenty office workers from the University of Zurich wore an ActiGraph and activPAL during two identical laboratory experiments lasting approximately 60 minutes each, within a maximum of 7 days. The experimental setting consisted of a standard computer office workstation with an electrically powered height-adjustable desk, a swivel chair without arm rests, a standard chair, a footrest, and a bookcase. The protocol consisted of 24 pre-defined tasks mimicking sitting, standing, stepping, and postural transitions around the workplace. All tasks were supervised and observed by the same experimenter.
resultsIn repeated measurements (40 individual experiments), the percentages of correctly classified tasks for the ActiGraph and activPAL were, respectively, 100% vs. 85% for sitting, 87% vs. 100% for standing, and 100% vs. 73% for postural transitions. Both monitors correctly identified all stepping tasks. The activPAL misclassified sitting with legs outstretched, and sitting with both feet placed beneath the chair, as standing ~25-70% and 45% of the time, respectively. The ActiGraph misclassified standing with the right foot on a footrest as sitting in 65% of events.
conclusionsThe ActiGraph appears to be slightly more sensitive than the activPAL with respect to the measurement of sitting and postural transitions of short duration, whereas the activPAL seems to be slightly more accurate in capturing standing postures. This knowledge will help guide researchers to choose the best suitable monitor for their research setting.
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.