Dataset Information

Comparing the activPAL software's Primary Time in Bed Algorithm against Self-Report and van der Berg's Algorithm.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare activPAL algorithm-estimated values for time in bed (TIB), wake time (WT) and bedtime (BT) against self-report and an algorithm developed by van der Berg and colleagues. Secondary analyses of baseline data from the Community Activity for Prevention Study (CAPS) were used in which adults ≥ 18 years wore the activPAL for seven days. Mixed-effects models compared differences between TIB, WT, and BT for all three methods. Bland-Altman plots examined agreement and the two-one-sided test examined equivalence. activPAL was not equivalent to self-report or van der Berg in estimating TIB, but was equivalent to self-report for estimating BT, and was equivalent to van der Berg for estimating WT. The activPAL algorithm requires adjustments before researchers can use it to estimate TIB. However, researchers can use activPAL's option to manually enter self-reported BT and WT to estimate TIB and better understand 24-hour movement patterns.

SUBMITTER: Courtney JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315620 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing the activPAL software's Primary Time in Bed Algorithm against Self-Report and van der Berg's Algorithm.

Courtney J B JB Nuss K K Lyden K K Harrall K K KK Glueck D H DH Villalobos A A Hamman R F RF Hebert J R JR Hurley T G TG Leiferman J J Li K K Alaimo K K Litt J S JS

Measurement in physical education and exercise science 20201228 3

The purpose of this study was to compare activPAL algorithm-estimated values for time in bed (TIB), wake time (WT) and bedtime (BT) against self-report and an algorithm developed by van der Berg and colleagues. Secondary analyses of baseline data from the Community Activity for Prevention Study (CAPS) were used in which adults ≥ 18 years wore the activPAL for seven days. Mixed-effects models compared differences between TIB, WT, and BT for all three methods. Bland-Altman plots examined agreement ...[more]

PMID: 34326627

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSedentary behaviour is a public health concern that requires surveillance and epidemiological research. For such large scale studies, self-report tools are a pragmatic measurement solution. A large number of self-report tools are currently in use, but few have been validated against an objective measure of sedentary time and there is no comparative information between tools to guide choice or to enable comparison between studies. The aim of this study was to provide a systematic comparison, generalisable to all tools, of the validity of self-report measures of sedentary time against a gold standard sedentary time objective monitor.MethodsCross sectional data from three cohorts (N = 700) were used in this validation study. Eighteen self-report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy of Self-report SB Tools (TASST) framework, were compared against an objective measure of postural sitting (activPAL) to provide information, generalizable to all existing tools, on agreement and precision using Bland-Altman statistics, on criterion validity using Pearson correlation, and on data loss.ResultsAll self-report measures showed poor accuracy compared with the objective measure of sedentary time, with very wide limits of agreement and poor precision (random error > 2.5 h). Most tools under-reported total sedentary time and demonstrated low correlations with objective data. The type of assessment used by the tool, whether direct, proxy, or a composite measure, influenced the measurement characteristics. Proxy measures (TV time) and single item direct measures using a visual analogue scale to assess the proportion of the day spent sitting, showed the best combination of precision and data loss. The recall period (e.g. previous week) had little influence on measurement characteristics.ConclusionSelf-report measures of sedentary time result in large bias, poor precision and low correlation with an objective measure of sedentary time. Choice of tool depends on the research context, design and question. Choice can be guided by this systematic comparative validation and, in the case of population surveillance, it recommends to use a visual analog scale and a 7 day recall period. Comparison between studies and improving population estimates of average sedentary time, is possible with the comparative correction factors provided.

Dataset Information

Comparing the activPAL software's Primary Time in Bed Algorithm against Self-Report and van der Berg's Algorithm.

Publications

Comparing the activPAL software's Primary Time in Bed Algorithm against Self-Report and van der Berg's Algorithm.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets