Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents

de Vries, Sanne I., Bakker, Ingrid, Hopman-Rock, Marijke, Hirasing, Remy A. and van Mechelen, Willem (2006) Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59 7: 670-680. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.020


Author de Vries, Sanne I.
Bakker, Ingrid
Hopman-Rock, Marijke
Hirasing, Remy A.
van Mechelen, Willem
Title Clinimetric review of motion sensors in children and adolescents
Journal name Journal of Clinical Epidemiology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0895-4356
1878-5921
Publication date 2006-07-01
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.020
Open Access Status
Volume 59
Issue 7
Start page 670
End page 680
Total pages 11
Place of publication New York, U.S.A.
Publisher Elsevier
Language eng
Subject 1117 Public Health and Health Services
Abstract Background and Objectives: To review the clinimetric quality of motion sensors used to assess physical activity in healthy children and adolescents (2–18 years). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and SpycINFO. The clinimetric quality of two pedometers (Digi-Walker, Pedoboy), four one-dimensional accelerometers (LSI, Caltrac, Actiwatch, CSA/ActiGraph), and three three-dimensional accelerometers (Tritrac-R3D, RT3, Tracmor2) was evaluated and compared using a 20-item checklist. Results: Overall, the quality of the studies (n = 35), and therefore the level of evidence for the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility of the motion sensors was modest (mean = 6.4 ± 1.6 out of 14 points). There was strong evidence for a good reproducibility of the Caltrac in adolescents (12–18 years), a poor reproducibility of the Digi-Walker in children (8–12 years), a good validity of the CSA/ActiGraph in children and adolescents (8–18 years), and a good validity of the Tritrac-R3D in children (8–12 years). Conclusions: The CSA/ActiGraph and the Caltrac are the only motion sensors in which the reproducibility, validity, and feasibility have been examined in different age groups. Further studies of the reproducibility of motion sensors in preschool children, improvement of the quality of clinimetric studies, and evaluation of the acceptability of motion sensors are warranted.
Keyword Accelerometer
Pedometer
Physical activity
Reproducibility
Review
Validity
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Unknown

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) - Collection
School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 132 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 144 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 03 Apr 2009, 21:59:37 EST by Jason Parr on behalf of Library Corporate Services