ArticleInternational journal of exercise science2025
Validity and Reliability of the 'Feelfit®' Accelerometer in Evaluating Physical Activity and Sedentary Time in Children: A Comparative Study with Two Different Accelerometers.
Article in International journal of exercise science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate physical activity (PA) measurement is crucial for public health surveillance. While self-report questionnaires are commonly used, they have limitations, especially in young children. An affordable and user-friendly device like Feelfit® offers a promising alternative particularly for countries with limited research resources. This study aimed to evaluate Feelfit®'s performance against the widely used ActiGraph® accelerometer in measuring PA among children. A quasi-experimental design was applied. Thirty-nine children (19 boys; 20 girls; aged 11.4 ± 0.5 years) wore both Feelfit® and ActiGraph® during sequentially specified activities of varying intensity ranging from sedentary to vigorous. Data were analysed using paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess agreement, precision, and reliability. Feelfit® showed good agreement with ActiGraph® for moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) but overestimated sedentary time and underestimated light PA. It demonstrated better precision for MVPA but low reliability for light PA. Intra-class correlation coefficients were moderate for MVPA (ICC = 0.43), but poor for sedentary time (ICC = 0.11). Feelfit® is a suitable option for measuring MVPA in children, offering acceptable validity and reliability compared to ActiGraph®. However, improvements are needed for accurate measure of sedentary and light activities. Despite these limitations, Feelfit®'s affordability and ease of use make it a valuable tool for use in small- to large-scale research and in resource-limited settings.
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.