Cargando…

Validity of smartphone pedometer applications

BACKGROUND: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). PARTICIPANTS: Conv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Orr, Krystn, Howe, Holly S., Omran, Janine, Smith, Kristina A., Palmateer, Tess M., Ma, Alvin E., Faulkner, Guy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26621351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8
_version_ 1782403656952315904
author Orr, Krystn
Howe, Holly S.
Omran, Janine
Smith, Kristina A.
Palmateer, Tess M.
Ma, Alvin E.
Faulkner, Guy
author_facet Orr, Krystn
Howe, Holly S.
Omran, Janine
Smith, Kristina A.
Palmateer, Tess M.
Ma, Alvin E.
Faulkner, Guy
author_sort Orr, Krystn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)]. METHODS: Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures. RESULTS: Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer. CONCLUSIONS: Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4666074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46660742015-12-02 Validity of smartphone pedometer applications Orr, Krystn Howe, Holly S. Omran, Janine Smith, Kristina A. Palmateer, Tess M. Ma, Alvin E. Faulkner, Guy BMC Res Notes Research Article BACKGROUND: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)]. METHODS: Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures. RESULTS: Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer. CONCLUSIONS: Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4666074/ /pubmed/26621351 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8 Text en © Orr et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Orr, Krystn
Howe, Holly S.
Omran, Janine
Smith, Kristina A.
Palmateer, Tess M.
Ma, Alvin E.
Faulkner, Guy
Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title_full Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title_fullStr Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title_full_unstemmed Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title_short Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
title_sort validity of smartphone pedometer applications
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26621351
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8
work_keys_str_mv AT orrkrystn validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT howehollys validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT omranjanine validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT smithkristinaa validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT palmateertessm validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT maalvine validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications
AT faulknerguy validityofsmartphonepedometerapplications