These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validity of accelerometry for measurement of activity in people with brain injury.
    Author: Tweedy SM, Trost SG.
    Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2005 Sep; 37(9):1474-80. PubMed ID: 16177597.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To evaluate the validity of a uniaxial accelerometer (MTI Actigraph) for measuring physical activity in people with acquired brain injury (ABI) using portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed K4b(2)) as a criterion measure. METHODS: Fourteen people with ABI and related gait pattern impairment (age 32 +/- 8 yr) wore an MTI Actigraph that measured activity (counts.min(-1)) and a Cosmed K4b(2) that measured oxygen consumption (mL.kg(-1).min(-1)) during four activities: quiet sitting (QS) and comfortable paced (CP), brisk paced (BP), and fast paced (FP) walking. MET levels were predicted from Actigraph counts using a published equation and compared with Cosmed measures. Predicted METs for each of the 56 activity bouts (14 participants x 4 bouts) were classified (light, moderate, vigorous, or very vigorous intensity) and compared with Cosmed-based classifications. RESULTS: Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that walking condition intensities were significantly different (P < 0.05) and the Actigraph detected the differences. Overall correlation between measured and predicted METs was positive, moderate, and significant (r = 0.74). Mean predicted METs were not significantly different from measured for CP and BP, but for FP walking, predicted METs were significantly less than measured (P < 0.05). The Actigraph correctly classified intensity for 76.8% of all activity bouts and 91.5% of light- and moderate-intensity bouts. CONCLUSIONS: Actigraph counts provide a valid index of activity across the intensities investigated in this study. For light to moderate activity, Actigraph-based estimates of METs are acceptable for group-level analysis and are a valid means of classifying activity intensity. The Actigraph significantly underestimated higher intensity activity, although, in practice, this limitation will have minimal impact on activity measurement of most community-dwelling people with ABI.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]