Cargando…

Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study

BACKGROUND: The ActiGraph and activPAL monitors are the most frequently used thigh-worn devices to measure motion and posture, but the criterion validity to measure sitting, standing and postural transfer in the office setting is not known. Research question: To examine the criterion validity of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Radtke, Thomas, Rodriguez, Manuel, Braun, Julia, Dressel, Holger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8171934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34077463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659
_version_ 1783702446953988096
author Radtke, Thomas
Rodriguez, Manuel
Braun, Julia
Dressel, Holger
author_facet Radtke, Thomas
Rodriguez, Manuel
Braun, Julia
Dressel, Holger
author_sort Radtke, Thomas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The ActiGraph and activPAL monitors are the most frequently used thigh-worn devices to measure motion and posture, but the criterion validity to measure sitting, standing and postural transfer in the office setting is not known. Research question: To examine the criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL activity monitors in repeatedly measuring a variety of different postures and motion in the office setting. METHODS: Twenty office workers from the University of Zurich wore an ActiGraph and activPAL during two identical laboratory experiments lasting approximately 60 minutes each, within a maximum of 7 days. The experimental setting consisted of a standard computer office workstation with an electrically powered height-adjustable desk, a swivel chair without arm rests, a standard chair, a footrest, and a bookcase. The protocol consisted of 24 pre-defined tasks mimicking sitting, standing, stepping, and postural transitions around the workplace. All tasks were supervised and observed by the same experimenter. RESULTS: In repeated measurements (40 individual experiments), the percentages of correctly classified tasks for the ActiGraph and activPAL were, respectively, 100% vs. 85% for sitting, 87% vs. 100% for standing, and 100% vs. 73% for postural transitions. Both monitors correctly identified all stepping tasks. The activPAL misclassified sitting with legs outstretched, and sitting with both feet placed beneath the chair, as standing ~25–70% and 45% of the time, respectively. The ActiGraph misclassified standing with the right foot on a footrest as sitting in 65% of events. CONCLUSIONS: The ActiGraph appears to be slightly more sensitive than the activPAL with respect to the measurement of sitting and postural transitions of short duration, whereas the activPAL seems to be slightly more accurate in capturing standing postures. This knowledge will help guide researchers to choose the best suitable monitor for their research setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8171934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81719342021-06-14 Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study Radtke, Thomas Rodriguez, Manuel Braun, Julia Dressel, Holger PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The ActiGraph and activPAL monitors are the most frequently used thigh-worn devices to measure motion and posture, but the criterion validity to measure sitting, standing and postural transfer in the office setting is not known. Research question: To examine the criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL activity monitors in repeatedly measuring a variety of different postures and motion in the office setting. METHODS: Twenty office workers from the University of Zurich wore an ActiGraph and activPAL during two identical laboratory experiments lasting approximately 60 minutes each, within a maximum of 7 days. The experimental setting consisted of a standard computer office workstation with an electrically powered height-adjustable desk, a swivel chair without arm rests, a standard chair, a footrest, and a bookcase. The protocol consisted of 24 pre-defined tasks mimicking sitting, standing, stepping, and postural transitions around the workplace. All tasks were supervised and observed by the same experimenter. RESULTS: In repeated measurements (40 individual experiments), the percentages of correctly classified tasks for the ActiGraph and activPAL were, respectively, 100% vs. 85% for sitting, 87% vs. 100% for standing, and 100% vs. 73% for postural transitions. Both monitors correctly identified all stepping tasks. The activPAL misclassified sitting with legs outstretched, and sitting with both feet placed beneath the chair, as standing ~25–70% and 45% of the time, respectively. The ActiGraph misclassified standing with the right foot on a footrest as sitting in 65% of events. CONCLUSIONS: The ActiGraph appears to be slightly more sensitive than the activPAL with respect to the measurement of sitting and postural transitions of short duration, whereas the activPAL seems to be slightly more accurate in capturing standing postures. This knowledge will help guide researchers to choose the best suitable monitor for their research setting. Public Library of Science 2021-06-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8171934/ /pubmed/34077463 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659 Text en © 2021 Radtke et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Radtke, Thomas
Rodriguez, Manuel
Braun, Julia
Dressel, Holger
Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title_full Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title_fullStr Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title_full_unstemmed Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title_short Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study
title_sort criterion validity of the actigraph and activpal in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: a cross-sectional laboratory study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8171934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34077463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659
work_keys_str_mv AT radtkethomas criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy
AT rodriguezmanuel criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy
AT braunjulia criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy
AT dresselholger criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy