Due to Hurricane Zeta affecting our area, shipping will be delayed on Wednesday, October 28th. Our office will remain open, and we expect to resume normal operations on Thursday, October 29th. If you need immediate assistance, please contact us by email at email@example.com and we will respond as quickly as possible. Thank you for your continued support.
Validity of Accelerometry for Measurement of Activity in People With Brain Injury
- Published on 09/2005
Purpose To evaluate the validity of a uni-axial accelerometer (MTI Actigraph) for measuring physical activity in people with acquired brain injury (ABI) using portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed K4b2) 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 K4b2 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 [Lt] 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 [Lt] 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.
Link to Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16177597
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise