Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utility of Pedometers for Assessing Physical Activity

Construct Validity

  • Leading Article
  • Published:
Sports Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Valid assessment of physical activity is necessary to fully understand this important health-related behaviour for research, surveillance, intervention and evaluation purposes. This article is the second in a companion set exploring the validity of pedometer-assessed physical activity. The previous article published in Sports Medicine dealt with convergent validity (i.e. the extent to which an instrument’s output is associated with that of other instruments intended to measure the same exposure of interest). The present focus is on construct validity. Construct validity is the extent to which the measurement corresponds with other measures of theoretically-related parameters. Construct validity is typically evaluated by correlational analysis, that is, the magnitude of concordance between two measures (e.g. pedometer-determined steps/day and a theoretically-related parameter such as age, anthropometric measures and fitness). A systematic literature review produced 29 articles published since ≥1980 directly relevant to construct validity of pedometers in relation to age, anthropometric measures and fitness. Reported correlations were combined and a median r-value was computed. Overall, there was a weak inverse relationship (median r = −0.21) between age and pedometer-determined physical activity. A weak inverse relationship was also apparent with both body mass index and percentage overweight (median r = −0.27 and r = −0.22, respectively). Positive relationships regarding indicators of fitness ranged from weak to moderate depending on the fitness measure utilised: 6-minute walk test (median r = 0.69), timed treadmill test (median r = 0.41) and estimated maximum oxygen uptake (median r = 0.22). Studies are warranted to assess the relationship of pedometer-determined physical activity with other important health-related outcomes including blood pressure and physiological parameters such as blood glucose and lipid profiles. The aggregated evidence of convergent validity (presented in the previous companion article) and construct validity herein provides support for considering simple and inexpensive pedometers in both research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kriska AM, Casperson CJ. A collection of physical activity questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29Suppl. 6: S1–205

    Google Scholar 

  2. Booth M. Assessment of physical activity: an international perspective. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71(2): 114–20

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, et al. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33(7): 1126–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. LaMonte MJ, Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE. Physical activity. In: Anderson R, editor. Obesity: etiology, assessment, treatment, and prevention. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2003: 111–37

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71(2): 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  6. Freedson PS, Miller K. Objective monitoring of physical activity using motion sensors and heart rate. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71(2): 21–9

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moreau KL, DeGarmo R, Langley J, et al. Increasing daily walking lowers blood pressure in postmenopausal women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33(11): 1825–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tudor-Locke C, Myers AM, Rodger NW. Formative evaluation of The First Step Program: a practical intervention to increase daily physical activity. Can J Diabetes Care 2000; 24(4): 34–8

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tudor-Locke C, Myers AM. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med 2001; 31(2): 91–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Tudor-Locke C, Williams JE, Reis JP, et al. Utility of pedometers for assessing physical activity: convergent validity. Sports Med 2002; 32(12): 795–808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56(2): 81–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Last JM, editor. A dictionary of epidemiology. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ainsworth BE, Sternfeld B, Slattery ML, et al. Physical activity and breast cancer: evaluation of physical activity assessment methods. Cancer 1998; 83(3): 611–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tudor-Locke C, Myers AM. Methodological considerations for researchers and practitioners using pedometers to measure physical (ambulatory) activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2001; 72(1): 1–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Matthews CE, Ainsworth BE, Thompson RW, et al. Sources of variance in daily physical activity levels as measured by an accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34(8): 1376–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hendelman D, Miller K, Baggett C, et al. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32(9): S442–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Welk GJ, Differding JA, Thompson RW, et al. The utility of the Digi-walker step counter to assess daily physical activity patterns. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32(9): S481–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ramirez-Marrero FA, Smith BA, Kirby TE, et al. Evaluation of a step-counter during treadmill walking in 7–12 year old African-American children. J Natl Black Nurses Assoc 2002; 13(1): 1–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eston RG, Rowlands AV, Ingledew DK. Validity of heart rate, pedometry, and accelerometry for predicting the energy cost of children’s activities. J Appl Physiol 1998; 84(1): 362–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Narring F, Cauderay M, Cavadini C, et al. Physical fitness and sport activity of children and adolescents: methodological aspects of a regional survey. Soz Praventivmed 1999; 44(2): 44–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Michaud PA, Cauderay M, Narring F, et al. Assessment of physical activity with a pedometer and its relationship with V̇O2max among adolescents in Switzerland. Soz Praventivmed 2002; 47(2): 107–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schonhofer B, Ardes P, Geibel M, et al. Evaluation of a movement detector to measure daily activity in patients with chronic lung disease. Eur Respir J 1997; 10(12): 2814–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gardner AW, Sieminski DJ, Killewich LA. The effect of cigarette smoking on free-living daily physical activity in older claudication patients. Angiology 1997; 48(11): 947–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Northfield MR, et al. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998; 80(1): 54–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, et al. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13(8): 890–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yanagimoto Y, Oshida Y, Sato Y. Effects of walking on bone quality determined by ultrasound in the elderly. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10: 103–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Silva M, Shepherd EF, Jackson WO, et al. Average patient walking activity approaches 2 million cycles per year: pedometers under-record walking activity. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17(6): 693–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsubono Y, Tsuji I, Fujita K, et al. Validation of walking questionnaire for population-based prospective studies in Japan: comparison with pedometer. J Epidemiol 2002; 12(4): 305–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fukuoka Y, Nakagawa Y, Ogoh K, et al. Dynamics of the heart rate response to sinusoidal work in humans: influence of physical activity and age. Clin Sci (Lond) 2002; 102(1): 31–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Goldsmith AA, Dowson D, Wroblewski BM, et al. Comparative study of the activity of total hip arthroplasty patients and normal subjects. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16(5): 613–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Edelman B, Smits G. The pedometer: a reassessment of its usefulness in the measurement of activity level. Percept Mot Skills 1984; 58: 151–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tryon WW, Goldberg JL, Morrison DF. Activity decreases as percentage of overweight increases. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1992; 16(8): 591–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fogelholm M, Hiilloskorpi H, Laukkanen R, et al. Assessment of energy expenditure in overweight women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30(8): 1191–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Rowlands AV, Eston RG, Ingledew DK. Relationship between activity levels, aerobic fitness, and body fat in 8- to 10-yr-old children. J Appl Physiol 1999; 86(4): 1428–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. McClung CD, Zahiri CA, Higa JK, et al. Relationship between body mass index and activity in hip or knee arthorplasty patients. J Orthop Res 2000; 18(1): 35–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Whitt MC, et al. The relationship between pedometer-determined ambulatory activity and body composition variables. Int J Obes 2001; 25: 1571–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tudor-Locke C, Bell RC, Myers AM, et al. Pedometer-determined ambulatory activity in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2002; 55(3): 191–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vincent SD, Pangrazi RP. An examination of the activity patterns of elementary school children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 2002; 14(4): 432–41

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rozkovec A, Papouchado M, James MA, et al. The relationship of symptoms to performance in paced patients with breathlessness. Eur Heart J 1989; 10: 63–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Cowley AJ, Fullwood LJ, Muller AF, et al. Exercise capability in heart failure: is cardiac output important after all? Lancet 1991; 337: 771–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Ichihara Y, Hattorf R, Anno T, et al. Oxygen uptake and its relation to physical activity and other coronary risk factors in asymptomatic middle-aged Japanese. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 1996; 16(6): 378–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Sieminski DJ, Gardner AW. The relationship between free-living daily physical activity and the severity of peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Vasc Med 1997; 2: 286–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gardner AW, Montgomery PS, Womack CJ, et al. Smoking history is related to free-living daily physical activity in claudicants. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31(7): 980–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Nasr MK, McCarthy RJ, Walker RA, et al. The role of pedometers in assessment of inermittent claudication. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surgery 2002; 23: 317–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Houghton AR, Harrison M, Cowley AJ, et al. Assessing exercise capacity, quality of life and haemodynamics in heart failure: do the tests tell us the same thing? Eur J Heart Fail 2002; 4(3): 289–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tudor-Locke C, Ainsworth BE, Thompson RW, et al. Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of free-living physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2002; 34(12): 2045–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was undertaken while the first author was a post-doctoral fellow at the Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. We are grateful to Mary Brewer, Konasha Murphy and Synethia Williams for their assistance with this study. No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University East, CLAS Building, Room 160, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd, Mesa, Arizona, 85212, USA

    Catrine Tudor-Locke

  2. Arnold School of Public Health, Prevention Research Center, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

    Catrine Tudor-Locke, Joel E. Williams & Delores Pluto

  3. Graduate School of Public Health, College of Health and Human Services, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA

    Jared P. Reis

Authors
  1. Catrine Tudor-Locke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joel E. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jared P. Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Delores Pluto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tudor-Locke, C., Williams, J.E., Reis, J.P. et al. Utility of Pedometers for Assessing Physical Activity. Sports Med 34, 281–291 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434050-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434050-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation