Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 795–808 | Cite as

Utility of Pedometers for Assessing Physical Activity

Convergent Validity
  • Catrine Tudor-Locke
  • Joel E. Williams
  • Jared P. Reis
  • Delores Pluto
Review Article

Abstract

Valid assessment of physical activity is important to researchers and practitioners interested in surveillance, screening, programme evaluation and intervention. The validity of an assessment instrument is commonly considered its most important attribute. Convergent validity is the extent to which an instrument’s output is associated with that of other instruments intended to measure the same exposure of interest. A systematic review of the literature produced 25 articles directly relevant to the question of convergent validity of pedometers against accelerometers, observation, and self-reported measures of physical activity. Reported correlations were pooled and a median r-value was computed. Pedometers correlate strongly (median r = 0.86) with different accelerometers (specifically uniaxial accelerometers) depending on the specific instruments used, monitoring frame and conditions implemented, and the manner in which the outputs are expressed. Pedometers also correlate strongly (median r = 0.82) with time in observed activity. Time in observed inactivity correlated negatively with pedometer outputs (median r = -0.44). The relationship with observed steps taken depended upon monitoring conditions and speed of walking. The highest agreement was apparent during ambulatory activity (running, walking) or during sitting (when both observation and pedometers would register few steps taken). There was consistent evidence of reduced accuracy during slow walking. Pedometers correlate moderately with different measures of energy expenditure (median r = 0.68). The relationship between pedometer outputs and energy expenditure is complicated by the use of many different direct and indirect measures of energy expenditure and population samples. Concordance with self-reported physical activity (median r = 0.33) varied depending upon the self-report instrument used, individuals assessed, and how pedometer outputs are expressed (e.g. steps, distance travelled, energy expenditure). Pedometer output has an inverse relationship with reported time spent sitting (r = -0.38). The accumulated evidence herein provides ample support that the simple and inexpensive pedometer is a valid option for assessing physical activity in research and practice.

Keywords

Physical Activity Convergent Validity Motion Sensor Vertical Acceleration Slow Walking 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken while the first author was supported as a post-doctoral fellow at the Prevention Research Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. None of the authors received support from equipment manufacturers.

Referrences

  1. 1.
    Ainsworth BE, LaMonte MJ, Tudor-Locke C. Physical activity. In: Anderson R, editor. Obesity: etiology, assessment, treatment, and prevention. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics. In pressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Montoye HJ, Taylor HL. Measurement of physical activity in population studies: a review. Hum Biol 1984; 56 (2): 195–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kriska AM, Casperson CJ. A collection of physical activity questionnaires for health-related research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1997; 29 Suppl. 6: S1-S205Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Westerterp KR. Assessment of physical activity level in relation to obesity: current evidence and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31 Suppl. 11: S522-S5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Westerterp KR. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23 Suppl. 3: S45-S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tudor-Locke CE, Myers AM. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med 2001; 31 (312): 91–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowlands AV, Eston RG, Ingledew EK. Measurement of physical activity in children with particular reference to the use of heart rate and pedometry. Sports Med 1997; 24 (4): 258–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sequeira MM, Rickenbach M, Wietlisbach V, et al. Physical activity assessment using a pedometer and its comparison with a questionnaire in a large population survey. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142 (9): 989–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mahar MT, Ainsworth BE. Measurement of physical activity: the Cooper Institute Conference Series. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71 Suppl. 2: S1-S158Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raven PB, Perrel AW, Robertson DM, et al. Measurement of moderate physical activity: advances in assessment techniques. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 33 Suppl. 9: S439–516Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the Computer Science Applications Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30 (5): 777–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Welk GJ, Corbin CB, Dale D. Measurement issues in the assessment of physical activity in children. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71 Suppl. 2: 59–73Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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-S8Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bassett DR. Validity and reliability issues in objective monitoring of physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71 (2): 30–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freedson PS, Miller K. Objective monitoring of physical activity using motion sensors and heart rate. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71 (2): 21–9Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tudor-Locke CE, Myers AM. Methodological considerations for researchers and practitioners using pedometers tomeasure physical (ambulatory) activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 2001; 72 (1): 1–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multi method matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 80–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Windsor R, Baranowski T, Clark N, et al. Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs. 2nd ed. Mountain view (CA): Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ainsworth BE, Sternfeld B, Slattery ML, et al. Physical activity and breast cancer: evaluation of physical activity assessment methods. Cancer 1998; 83 (3): 611–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bassett DR, Strath SJ. Use of pedometers in assessing physical activity. In: Welk G, Dale D, editors. Physical activity assessments for health-related research. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics. In pressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gardner AW, Poehlman ET. Assessment of free-living daily physical activity in older claudicants: validation against the doubly labeled water technique. J Gerontol Med Sci 1998; 53A (4): M275-M80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kilanowski CK, Consalvi AR, Epstein LH. Validation of an electronic pedometer for measurement of physical activity in children. Pediatr Exerc Sci 1999; 11: 63–8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leenders NYJM, Sherman WM, Nagaraja HN. Comparisons of four methods of estimating physical activity in adult women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32 (7): 1320–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ, et al. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Ortho Rel Res 2000; 381: 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bassett DR, Ainsworth BE, Swartz AM, et al. Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32 Suppl. 9: S471–80Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leenders NYJM, Sherman WM, Nagaraja HN, et al. Evaluation of methods to assess physical activity in free-living conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33 (7): 1233–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nishikido N, Kashiwazaki H, Suzuki T. Preschool children’s daily activities: direct observation, pedometry or questionnaire. J Hum Ergol (Tokyo) 1982; 11: 214–8Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoodless DJ, Stainer K, Savic N, et al. Reduced customary activity in chronic heart failure: assessment with a new shoe mounted pedometer. Int J Cardiol 1994; 43 (1): 39–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Selin K, Winkel J, Stockholm MUSIC 1 Study Group. Evaluation of two instruments for recording sitting and standing postures and number of foot steps. Appl Ergon 1994; 25 (1): 503–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bassett DR, Ainsworth BE, Leggett SR, et al. Accuracy of five electronic pedometers for measuring distance walked. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1996; 28 (8): 1071–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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): 54–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shepherd EF, Toloza E, McClung CD, et al. Step activity monitor: increased accuracy in quantifying ambulatory activity. J Orthop Res 1999; 17 (5): 703–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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): S442–50Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kashiwazaki H, Inaoka T, Suzuki T, et al. Correlations of pedometer readings with energy expenditure in workers during free-living daily activities. Euro J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1986; 54 (6): 585–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Irimagawa S, Imamiya S-I. Industrial hygienic study on nursing activities comparison of energy expenditure between pedometer and Holter electrocardiograph. Kitasato Arch Exp Med 1993; 65: 99–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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: 362–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fogelholm M, Hiilloskorpi H, Laukkanen R, et al. Assessment of energy expenditure in overweight women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30 (8): 1191–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edelman B, Smits G. The pedometer: a reassessment of its usefulness in the measurement of activity level. Percept Mot Skills 1984; 58: 151–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Feller JA, Kay PR, Hodgkinson JP, et al. Activity and socket wear in the Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1994; 9 (4): 341–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shaukat N, Douglas JT, Bennett JL, et al. Can physical activity explain the differences in insulin levels and fibrinolytic activity between young Indo-origin and European relatives of patients with coronary heart disease? Fibrinolysis 1995; 9: 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, et al. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (8): 890–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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): 44–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bassett DR, Cureton AL, Ainsworth BE. Measurement of daily walking distance: questionnaire versus pedometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32 (5): 1018–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Singh PN, Fraser GE, Knutsen SF, et al. Validity of a physical activity questionnaire among African-American Seventh- Day Adventists. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001; 33 (3): 468–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hatano Y. Prevalence and use of pedometer [in Japanese]. Res J Walk 1997; 1: 45–54Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wilcox S, Tudor-Locke CE, Ainsworth BE. Physical activity patterns, assessment, and motivation in older adults. In: Shephard RJ, editor. Gender, physical activity and aging. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press, 2002: 513–39Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    McClung CD, Zahiri CA, Higa JK, et al. Relationship between body mass index and activity in hip or knee arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Res 2000; 18 (1): 35–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Montoye HJ, Kemper HCG, Saris WHM, et al. Measuring physical activity and energy expenditure. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71 (2): 1–14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catrine Tudor-Locke
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joel E. Williams
    • 2
  • Jared P. Reis
    • 2
  • Delores Pluto
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Exercise and WellnessArizona State UniversityMesaUSA
  2. 2.Prevention Research Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations