Concurrent validity of the Fitbit for assessing sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

39Citations
Citations of this article
141Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Recent advances in sensor technologies have promoted the use of consumer-based accelerometers such as Fitbit Flex in epidemiological and clinical research; however, the validity of the Fitbit Flex in measuring sedentary behavior (SED) and physical activity (PA) has not been fully determined against previously validated research-grade accelerometers such as ActiGraph GT3X+. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Fitbit Flex against ActiGraph GT3X+ in a free-living condition. Methods: A total of 65 participants (age: M = 42, SD = 14 years, female: 72%) each wore a Fitbit Flex and GT3X+ for seven consecutive days. After excluding sleep and non-wear time, time spent (min/day) in SED and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were estimated using various cut-points for GT3X+ and brand-specific algorithms for Fitbit, respectively. Repeated measures one-way ANOVA and mean absolute percent errors (MAPE) served to examine differences and measurement errors in SED and MVPA estimates between Fitbit Flex and GT3X+, respectively. Pearson and Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman (BA) plots were used to evaluate the association and potential systematic bias between Fitbit Flex and GT3X+. PROC MIXED procedure in SAS was used to examine the equivalence (i.e., the 90% confidence interval with ±10% equivalence zone) between the devices. Results: Fitbit Flex produced similar SED and low MAPE (mean difference [MD] = 37 min/day, P =.21, MAPE = 6.8%), but significantly higher MVPA and relatively large MAPE (MD = 59-77 min/day, P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Redenius, N., Kim, Y., & Byun, W. (2019). Concurrent validity of the Fitbit for assessing sedentary behavior and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0668-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free