ArticleJournal for the measurement of physical behaviour2026
Real-Time Versus Video-Recorded Step Count Validation Among Young Adults.
Article in Journal for the measurement of physical behaviour, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Consumer Technology Association guidelines recommend two independent researchers review video recordings of treadmill bouts to verify accuracy of the number of steps taken. Performing multiple post hoc validation checks requires significant resources for personnel time and costs, but it is unknown if the burden is necessary. The purpose of this study was to evaluate accuracy and efficiency of step counts assessed during direct observation compared with multiple reviews of video recordings. Methods: Participants ages 18-20 years (n = 72) completed up to twelve 5-min, zero-incline treadmill bouts, speeds ranging 0.2-2.7 m/s (0.5-6.0 mph). Directly observed steps were counted and hand-tallied in real-time. A sex-age stratified random sample of 30 participants' bouts were selected for analysis. Two independent researchers recounted steps from video recordings, producing three independent counts. Intraclass correlation coefficient determined interrater reliability. Mean average percent deviation computed deviation magnitude among the three counts. Correlation tests determined the relationship between absolute count differences and average counts for each pairwise comparison. Results: Interrater reliability was excellent with intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ .995 (p < .001) across all speeds. Average mean average percent deviation was 0.29% with bout-specific deviations ranging from 0.10% to 0.54%, indicating < 1% difference among the three counts for all bouts. Conclusions: A single real-time step count represents a sufficient and efficient approach to measure steps taken in a controlled treadmill setting, while video recounts serve as back-up to allay potential data loss concerns and/or for random selection verification. These data-driven findings are useful for optimizing personnel time and reducing costs associated with collecting quality data in large-scale treadmill-based step-counting studies.
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.