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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |