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