Unit-specific calibration of Actigraph accelerometers in a mechanical setup – Is it worth the effort? The effect on random output variation caused by technical inter-instrument variability in the laboratory and in the field

BACKGROUND: Potentially, unit-specific in-vitro calibration of accelerometers could increase field data quality and study power. However, reduced inter-unit variability would only be important if random instrument variability contributes considerably to the total variation in field data. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to calculate and apply unit-specific calibration factors in multiple accelerometers in order to examine the impact on random output variation caused by inter-instrument variability. METHODS: Instrument-specific calibration factors were estimated in 25 MTI- and 53 CSA accelerometers in a mechanical setup using four different settings varying in frequencies and/or amplitudes. Calibration effect was analysed by comparing raw and calibrated data after applying unit-specific calibration factors to data obtained during quality checks in a mechanical setup and to data collected during free living conditions. RESULTS: Calibration reduced inter-instrument variability considerably in the mechanical setup, both in the MTI instruments (raw SD(between units )= 195 counts*min(-1 )vs. calibrated SD(between units )= 65 counts*min(-1)) and in the CSA instruments (raw SD(between units )= 343 counts*min(-1 )vs. calibrated SD(between units )= 67 counts*min(-1)). However, the effect of applying the derived calibration to children's and adolescents' free living physical activity data did not alter the coefficient of variation (CV) (children: CV(raw )= 30.2% vs. CV(calibrated )= 30.4%, adolescents: CV(raw )= 36.3% vs. CV(calibrated )= 35.7%). High correlations (r = 0.99 & r = 0.98, respectively) were observed between raw and calibrated field data, and the proportion of the total variation caused by the MTI- and CSA monitor was estimated to be only 1.1% and 4.2%, respectively. Compared to the CSA instruments, a significantly increased (9.95%) mean acceleration response was observed post hoc in the batch of MTI instruments, in which a significantly reduced inter-instrumental reliability was observed over time. CONCLUSION: The application of unit-specific calibration factors to data collected during free living conditions had no apparent effect on inter-instrument variability. In all probability, the effect of technical calibration was primarily attenuated in the field by other more dominant sources of variation. However, routine technical assessments are still very important for determining the acceleration responses in the batch of instruments being used and, if performed after every field use, for preventing decidedly broken instruments from being returned into the field repeatedly.