Skip Navigation LinksHome > May 2003 - Volume 35 - Issue 5 > Comparison of Pedometer and Accelerometer Accuracy under Con...
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise:
APPLIED SCIENCES: Physical Fitness and Performance

Comparison of Pedometer and Accelerometer Accuracy under Controlled Conditions

LE MASURIER, GUY C.; TUDOR-LOCKE, CATRINE

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University East, Mesa, AZ

Address for correspondence: Guy Le Masurier, Department of Exercise and Wellness, Arizona State University East, 7001 E. Williams Field Rd., Mesa, AZ, 85212; E-mail: Guy.Lemasurier@asu.edu.

Submitted for publication October 2002.

Accepted for publication December 2002.

Collapse Box

Abstract

LE MASURIER, G. C., and C. TUDOR-LOCKE. Comparison of Pedometer and Accelerometer Accuracy under Controlled Conditions. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 867–871, 2003.

Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the concurrent accuracy of the CSA accelerometer and the Yamax pedometer under two conditions: 1) on a treadmill at five different speeds and 2) riding in a motorized vehicle on paved roads.

Methods: In study 1, motion sensor performance was evaluated against actual steps taken during 5-min bouts at five different treadmill walking speeds (54, 67, 80, 94, and 107 m·min−1). In study 2, performance was evaluated during a roundtrip (drive 1 and drive 2) motor vehicle travel on paved roads (total distance traveled was 32.6 km or 20.4 miles). Any steps detected during motor vehicle travel were considered error.

Results: In study 1, the Yamax pedometer detected significantly (P < 0.05) fewer steps than actually taken at the slowest treadmill speed (54 m·min−1). Further, the pedometer detected fewer steps than the accelerometer at this speed (75.4% vs 98.9%, P < 0.05). There were no differences between instruments compared with actual steps taken at all other walking speeds. In study 2, the CSA detected approximately 17-fold more erroneous steps than the pedometer (approximately 250 vs 15 steps for the total distance traveled, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The magnitude of the error (for either instrument) is not likely an important threat to the assessment of free-living ambulatory populations but may be a problem for pedometers when monitoring frail older adults with slow gaits. On the other hand, CSA accelerometers erroneously detect more nonsteps than the Yamax pedometer under typical motor vehicle traveling conditions. This threat to validity is likely only problematic when using the accelerometer to assess physical activity in sedentary individuals who travel extensively by motor vehicle.

Accurate measures of physical activity (PA) are required by researchers interested in describing and evaluating the relationship between PA and important health outcomes (e.g., obesity, hypertension, and glucose tolerance). Advances in technology have generated an increased interest in objective monitoring of PA using body-worn sensors (e.g., accelerometers and pedometers). Recently published journal supplements have reflected this evolution of PA measurement (7,8), and a new PA assessment textbook prominently features chapters on both accelerometry and pedometry (17). A simple search of PubMed using the key words “accelerometer” and “physical activity” elicits 130 studies published between 1990 and 2002. A similar search substituting the term “pedometer” elicits 37 studies. Despite the evidence of increasing utilization of motion sensors for research and practice purposes, the process of objective monitoring is still in its infancy and the threat of measurement bias has not been extensively evaluated. Continued study is necessary to increase our understanding and interpretation of objectively monitored PA.

Pedometers are the least expensive ($10–30 per unit) and most user-friendly (14) of the two motion sensors and therefore are seen as more practical (inexpensive and feasible) for surveillance, screening, program evaluation and intervention through personal feedback (1,4,18,19). The brand that has received the most scientific attention has been the Yamax (Yamax Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) pedometers, perhaps because of an initial brand comparison study that concluded that these instruments were the most accurate of those assessed at the time (2). Since that time, Yamax pedometers have shown strong relationships (r = 0.80–0.90) under laboratory conditions with more expensive accelerometers including CSA model 7164 (MTI Health Services, Fort Walton Beach, FL) (3). Under controlled field conditions, the Yamax pedometer correlated with Tritrac (R3D, Professional Products, Reining Int., Madison, WI) and CSA accelerometers at r = 0.84–0.93 (6). The accumulated evidence indicates that the output of pedometers is highly representative of that produced by accelerometers (13).

In both these studies (6,13), pedometer-determined steps taken were compared with accelerometer-determined activity counts, an output representative of steps taken combined with velocity of movement. A dual-mode CSA accelerometer model 7164-version 2.2 is now available that collects both activity count data and the number of cycles in the signal, which manufacturers claim are representative of the simpler output: steps taken. A recent study examined steps taken as measured by the dual-mode accelerometer and the Yamax pedometer in free-living individuals and determined that, although the correlation between the two instruments was indeed strong (r = 0.86), the accelerometer detected 1,800+ more steps per day than the pedometer (11). This is similar to the difference detected between an ankle-borne accelerometer (Step Activity Monitor, SAM, Prosthetic Research Study, Seattle, WA) and a Sportline pedometer (Campbell, CA) under free-living conditions (10). We hypothesized that the discrepancy between the two instruments was likely due to differences in sensitivity thresholds set to detect vertical accelerations. The CSA accelerometer requires a force ≥ 0.30 g to register and record a movement; the corresponding value for the Yamax pedometer is ≥ 0.35 g (11). We would therefore expect that some of the discrepancy might be explained by a greater ability of the accelerometer to detect lower forces typical of slower walking speeds. Previous research has shown that the Yamax pedometer underestimates the number of steps taken at slower walking speeds (indicative of lower forces) (2,5). On the other hand, a lower sensitivity threshold may result in the accelerometer erroneously detecting more nonstep movements as steps taken, for example, simple agitation experienced while riding in a motorized vehicle. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to compare the concurrent accuracy of the dual-mode CSA accelerometer and the Yamax pedometer to actual steps taken observed under two conditions: 1) on a treadmill at five different speeds and, 2) riding in a motorized vehicle.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

Participants.

Convenience samples of male and female participants between the ages of 20 and 55 yr of age participated in one of two studies: study 1 (N = 20; 13 males, 7 females) or study 2 (N = 20; 12 males, 8 females). Procedures for both studies were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Arizona State University. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before participation. Age was recorded, and height and weight were measured in light street clothing (without shoes) to the nearest 0.5 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively, using a measuring tape, a framing square, and a standard physician’s scale. Because BMI > 30 kg·m−2 has been implicated as a source of error when using motion sensors (9), all participants were specifically recruited for a BMI of < 30 kg·m−2. Characteristics of the participants in study 1 and study 2 are presented in Table 1.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Instruments.

The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and the dual-mode CSA were used in both studies. All instruments were checked for calibration before each individual use. Pedometers were checked using a brief walking test (15), and if the error exceeded 2%, the pedometer was not used in the study. Accelerometers were checked using manufacturer-recommended hardware and software, and calibrated if necessary. All pedometers and accelerometers used in the study met the accuracy and calibration criteria. Accelerometers were initialized to detect steps taken in 30-s epochs (study 1) or 1-min epochs (study 2) and synchronized to the investigator’s timing device. Because no detected steps were expected in study 2, a longer epoch was considered sufficient to detect any steps recorded erroneously. Both motion sensors were worn concurrently on the right hip according to the manufacturer’s recommendations during all testing. At the end of each test, accelerometer data was downloaded using manufacturer recommended hardware and software. Data reduction focused on accumulated accelerometer steps detected for each epoch between washout periods (defined below), verified with synchronized time records. The final outputs for each motion sensor were recorded as steps taken during each test.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Study 1: impact of walking speed on accelerometer and pedometer accuracy.

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of the accelerometer and pedometer to the criterion standard of observed steps taken while walking on a motor-driven treadmill (Quinton model Q55, Seattle, WA) at five different speeds. This study was designed in part to replicate the methods undertaken in a previous evaluation of walking speed and pedometer accuracy (2). Therefore the treadmill speeds used herein were the same used in that earlier study (i.e., 54, 67, 80, 94, and 107 m·min−1). Before testing, the treadmill speed was determined by measuring the belt length (3.2 m) and the time it took to complete 25 revolutions of the treadmill belt. A carpenter’s level was used to calibrate the treadmill to a 0% grade according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The accuracy of the carpenter’s level was checked by turning it horizontally 180° and observing that the bubble was still centered. This calibration method was also used previously (2).

Participants walked on the treadmill for 5-min bouts at each of the five walking speeds. Before each bout, participants stood still on the treadmill for a 2-min washout period to ensure that accelerometer steps recorded before the official bout were not entered into the analysis. The 2-min washout period was repeated between each bout and after the last 5-min bout. At the end of each bout, the pedometer steps taken were recorded, and the device was reset to zero before a subsequent bout. The actual number of steps taken was counted by observation and verified by a video recording aimed at the participant’s lower extremities.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Study 2: impact of motorized travel on accelerometer and pedometer accuracy.

The purpose of study 2 was to compare the accuracy of the accelerometer and pedometer while riding in a motorized vehicle on paved roads. No actual steps were taken under these conditions. Participants were monitored during a roundtrip motor vehicle (2002 Toyota Rav 4) ride on paved roads, split into equal out (drive 1) and back (drive 2) segments (total distance traveled was 32.6 km or 20.4 miles). Participants occupied the front passenger seat, the back seats, and on one occasion the driver seat. Before departure, participants fastened their seat belts, reset their pedometers to zero, and sat still in the vehicle for a 2-min washout period to ensure that any steps taken before the ride were not considered in the analysis of accelerometer data. Another 2-min washout period was implemented between the two driving segments and any pedometer steps detected were recorded at this time. After drive 2, participants sat through a final 2-min washout period before recording any pedometer steps detected.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical analysis.

Descriptive data for both studies is presented as means ± SD and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the means. In study 1, steps taken for both motion sensors were expressed as a percentage of the actual number of steps observed for each bout (see Table 2). A repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess significant differences between actual steps taken and those recorded by the two motion sensors. Tukey’s honestly significant difference post hoc procedure was used to determine where the differences existed.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

In study 2, it was assumed that any steps detected by either instrument were indicative of measurement error. Differences in the number of steps detected during both driving segments by the two motion sensors were compared using a Student’s t-test. An intraclass correlation (ICC) was computed for each motion sensor based on data collected separately for drive 1 and drive 2.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Study 1.

Table 2 presents the motion sensors’ performances relative to actual steps taken. Only the Yamax pedometer detected significantly (P < 0.05) fewer steps than were actually taken at the slowest treadmill speed (54 m·min−1). At the remaining four speeds (67, 80, 94, and 107 m·min−1), there were no significant differences between the actual number of steps taken and the number of steps recorded by either instrument, nor did these two motion sensors differ from each other at any of these remaining speeds.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Study 2.

Although no actual steps were taken during the motor vehicle travel segments, both motion sensors erroneously detected steps taken. Table 3 displays the performance of the two motion sensors during the two driving segments. On average, the CSA accelerometer detected 17-fold more erroneous steps than the Yamax pedometer (P < 0.05). The computed ICC for the two repeated driving segments were 0.79 and 0.88 (both P < 0.05), for the accelerometer and the pedometer, respectively.

Table 3
Table 3
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

This study replicates and extends an earlier study (2) that examined pedometer accuracy at the same treadmill speeds used in study 1. Both motion sensors performed well at most walking speeds. The Yamax pedometer consistently under recorded steps taken at the slowest walking speed (< 60 m·min−1). Such slow speeds of walking are considered much slower than typical normal walking and therefore should not be an important source of error in studies of free-living activity in ambulatory populations (5). Pedometers may not be appropriate measurement devices for assessing the physical activity of frail, institutionalized older adults with characteristically shuffling, slow gaits (20).

The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (16) reported that Americans typically drove 39 miles·d−1 in 1995, almost twice as far as the total distance evaluated in study 2. The expected corresponding error would be approximately 500 steps for the CSA accelerometer and 30 steps for the Yamax pedometer. Because the average healthy adult takes between 7,000 and 13,000 steps·d−1 (15), the magnitude of the error is 4–7% for the accelerometer and less than 1% for the pedometer. The magnitude of the error would become more important when assessing typically sedentary populations (e.g., individuals living with chronic diseases). Such individuals take between 3500 and 5000 steps·d−1 (15). The relative magnitude of the error would be 10–14% for the accelerometer and still less than 1% for the pedometer. Measured more directly, erroneous pedometer-detected steps amounted to 2–3% of daily PA levels in a sample of community-dwelling older adults (12). However scrutinized, the magnitude of the error attributed to erroneous objective monitoring of typical motor vehicle travel using either motion sensor is relatively small and likely only a concern when using accelerometers to assess sedentary individuals who primarily use motorized transport.

Taken together, potential error due to slow walking (missing steps taken) and to typical motor vehicle travel (detecting nonsteps) begins to explain the ≈1800 steps·d−1 difference between the these two types of motion sensors used to monitor PA in a free-living population (10,11). In addition, compared with the pedometer, the accelerometer is likely more sensitive to other nonambulatory movements (e.g., weight-shifting, twisting, fidgeting, bending, etc.). These incidental movements taken throughout the day would widen the gap between steps taken and steps detected by the two instruments. A similar sensitivity threshold (e.g., 35 g) might remedy the measurement discrepancy. However, any set sensitivity threshold must take into consideration the inevitable specificity/sensitivity trade-off; if greater sensitivity (i.e., ability to detect low force stepping) is expected, then the researcher must be willing to accept decreased specificity (i.e., ability to discriminate movements, including external agitation, that are not ambulatory in nature).

This investigation comprised controlled studies of motion sensor performance under a limited array of situations. Self-selected walking speeds on a variety of real-world surfaces were not evaluated. Similarly, a single motor vehicle was used on a paved road. It is likely that results will vary with different vehicles and conditions including suspension systems, road surfaces, and the stop-and-go motion of typical vehicle travel. Our results may underestimate the error of the pedometer and CSA accelerometer during motorized travel. Regardless, it is abundantly apparent that the two instruments detect the actual number of steps taken differently and in a manner consistent with their intended design.

In summary, both CSA accelerometers and Yamax pedometers are useful instruments for objectively assessing PA as steps taken over a defined unit of time (e.g., hour, during physical education class, or day). Accelerometers also detect the velocity of the movement, which can be used to infer intensity, and can record movement in even smaller units of time (e.g., 30-s epochs). The pedometer does not discriminate intensity of movement nor reflect the amount of time spent in specific intensity categories of activity. Pedometers detect fewer steps taken during very slow walking speeds (e.g., < 60 m·min−1). The magnitude of the error (for either instrument) is not likely an important threat to the assessment of free-living ambulatory populations but may be a problem when monitoring frail older adults with slow gaits. CSA accelerometers erroneously detect more nonsteps than the Yamax pedometer under typical motor vehicle traveling conditions. This threat to validity is likely only problematic when using the accelerometer to assess PA in sedentary individuals who travel extensively by motor vehicle. A correction factor should be considered when comparing steps taken between studies of free-living individuals monitored with these two instruments. Although a difference of ≈1800 steps·d−1 between accelerometers and pedometers has been previously identified (10,11), it is premature at this point to specify an absolute correction factor. Additional studies of a confirmatory nature are warranted.

The authors do not have a professional relationship with companies or manufacturers who may benefit from the results of the present study. The results of the present study do not constitute endorsement of the products by the authors or the ACSM.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Bassett, D. R. Validity and reliability issues in objective monitoring of physical activity. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 71: 30–36, 2000.

2. Bassett, D. R., B. E. Ainsworth, S. R. Leggett, et al. Accuracy of five electronic pedometers for measuring distance walked. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 28: 1071–1077, 1996.

3. Bassett, D. R., B. E. Ainsworth, A. M. Swartz, S. J. Strath, W. L. O’Brien, and G. A. King. Validity of four motion sensors in measuring moderate intensity physical activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32: S471–S480, 2000.

4. Freedson, P. S., and K. Miller. Objective monitoring of physical activity using motion sensors and heart rate. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 71: 21–29, 2000.

5. Hendelman, D., K. Miller, C. Baggett, E. Debold, and P. Freedson. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32: S442–S450, 2000.

6. Leenders, N. Y. J. M., W. M. Sherman, and H. N. Nagaraja. Comparisons of four methods of estimating physical activity in adult women. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32: 1320–1326, 2000.

7. Mahar, M. T., and B. E. Ainsworth. Measurement of physical activity: the Cooper Institute Conference Series. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 71: S1–S158, 2000.

8. Raven, P. B., A. W. Perrel, D. M. Robertson, H. W. Kohl, D. L. Kibbe, and S. Trost. Measurement of moderate physical activity: advances in assessment techniques. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33: S439–S516, 2000.

9. Shepherd, E. F., E. Toloza, C. D. Mcclung, and T. P. Schmalzried. Step activity monitor: increased accuracy in quantifying ambulatory activity. J. Orthop. Res. 17: 703–708, 1999.

10. Silva, M., E. F. Shepherd, W. O. Jackson, F. J. Dorey, and T. P. Schmalzried. Average patient walking activity approaches 2 million cycles per year: pedometers under-record walking activity. J. Arthroplasty 17: 693–697, 2002.

11. Tudor-Locke, C., B. E. Ainsworth, R. W. Thompson, and C. E. Matthews. Comparison of pedometer and accelerometer measures of free-living physical activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 34: 2045–2051, 2002.

12. Tudor-Locke, C., G. R. Jones, A. M. Myers, D. H. Paterson, and N. A. Ecclestone. Contribution of structured exercise class participation and informal walking for exercise to daily physical activity in community-dwelling older adults. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 73: 350–356, 2002.

13. Tudor-Locke, C., J. E. Williams, J. P. Reis, and D. Pluto. Utility of pedometers for assessing physical activity: Convergent validity. Sports Med. 32: 795–808, 2002.

14. Tudor-Locke, C. E., and A. M. Myers. Challenges and opportunities for measuring physical activity in sedentary adults. Sports Med. 31: 91–100, 2001.

15. Tudor-Locke, C. E., and A. M. Myers. Methodological considerations for researchers and practitioners using pedometers to measure physical (ambulatory) activity. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 72: 1–12, 2001.

16. U.S. Department of Transportation. Proceedings from the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Symposium, October 29–31, 1997. In: Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey Symposium. Bethesda, MD: Federal Highway Administration, 1999.

17. Welk, G. J. (Ed.). Physical Activity Assessments for Health- Related Research. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2002, pp. 125–140, 163–175.

18. Welk, G. J., C. B. Corbin, and D. Dale. Measurement issues in the assessment of physical activity in children. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 71: 59–73, 2000.

19. Welk, G. J., J. A. Differding, R. W. Thompson, S. N. Blair, J. Dziura, and P. Hart. The utility of the Digi-walker step counter to assess daily physical activity patterns. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32: S481–S488, 2000.

20. Wilcox, S., C. E. Tudor-Locke, and B. E. Ainsworth. Physical activity patterns, assessment, and motivation in older adults. In: Gender, Physical Activity and Aging. R. J. Shephard (Ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2002, pp. 13–39.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 89 time(s).

International Journal of Mental Health Nursing
Description of physical activity in outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders
Beebe, LH; Harris, RF
International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22(5): 430-436.
10.1111/inm.12008
CrossRef
Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism-Physiologie Appliquee Nutrition Et Metabolisme
A step-defined sedentary lifestyle index: < 5000 steps/day
Tudor-Locke, C; Craig, CL; Thyfault, JP; Spence, JC
Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism-Physiologie Appliquee Nutrition Et Metabolisme, 38(2): 100-114.
10.1139/apnm-2012-0235
CrossRef
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
The 6MWT: Will Different Methods of Instruction and Measurement Affect Performance of Healthy Aging and Older Adults?
Southard, V; Gallagher, R
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 36(2): 68-73.
10.1519/JPT.0b013e318264b5e8
CrossRef
Journal of Physical Activity & Health
The Use of Pedometers for Monitoring Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: Measurement Considerations
Clemes, SA; Biddle, SJH
Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(2): 249-262.

Journal of Physical Activity & Health
Comparison of GT3X Accelerometer and YAMAX Pedometer Steps/Day in a Free-Living Sample of Overweight and Obese Adults
Barreira, TV; Tudor-Locke, C; Champagne, CM; Broyles, ST; Johnson, WD; Katzmarzyk, PT
Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(2): 263-270.

Preventive Medicine
How many days of pedometer monitoring predict weekly physical activity in adults?
Tudor-Locke, C; Burkett, L; Reis, JP; Ainsworth, BE; Macera, CA; Wilson, DK
Preventive Medicine, 40(3): 293-298.
10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.06.003
CrossRef
Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Emerging concepts in outcome assessment for COPD clinical trials
Patel, SA; Sciurba, FC
Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 26(2): 253-262.

European Journal of Applied Physiology
Comparison of two waist-mounted and two ankle-mounted electronic pedometers
Karabulut, M; Crouter, SE; Bassett, DR
European Journal of Applied Physiology, 95(4): 335-343.
10.1007/s00421-005-0018-3
CrossRef
Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique
Evaluation of quality of commercial pedometers
Tudor-Locke, C; Sisson, SB; Lee, SM; Craig, CL; Plotnikoff, RC; Bauman, A
Canadian Journal of Public Health-Revue Canadienne De Sante Publique, 97(): S10-S15.

British Journal of Sports Medicine
The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking
Ryan, CG; Grant, PM; Tigbe, WW; Granat, MH
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(9): 779-784.
10.1136/bjsm.2006.027276
CrossRef
International Journal of Obesity
Four-week pedometer-determined activity patterns in normal weight and overweight UK adults
Clemes, SA; Griffiths, PL; Hamilton, SL
International Journal of Obesity, 31(2): 261-266.
10.1038/sj.ijo.0803420
CrossRef
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Accelerometer-Determined Steps/Day and Metabolic Syndrome
Sisson, SB; Camhi, SM; Church, TS; Tudor-Locke, C; Johnson, WD; Katzmarzyk, PT
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(6): 575-582.
10.1016/j.amepre.2010.02.015
CrossRef
Gait & Posture
Measuring distance walked and step count in children with cerebral palsy: An evaluation of two portable activity monitors
Kuo, YL; Culhane, KM; Thomason, P; Tirosh, O; Baker, R
Gait & Posture, 29(2): 304-310.
10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.09.014
CrossRef
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Combining GPS with heart rate monitoring to measure physical activity in children: A feasibility study
Duncan, JS; Badland, HM; Schofield, G
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(5): 583-585.
10.1016/j.jsams.2008.09.010
CrossRef
European Journal of Sport Science
Validation of a one-day self-report questionnaire for physical activity assessment in healthy adults
Leicht, A
European Journal of Sport Science, 8(6): 389-396.
10.1080/17461390802368994
CrossRef
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity
Monitoring Mobility in Older Adults Using Global Positioning System (GPS) Watches and Accelerometers: A Feasibility Study
Webber, SC; Porter, MM
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 17(4): 455-467.

British Journal of Sports Medicine
Validity of three accelerometers during treadmill walking and motor vehicle travel
Maddocks, M; Petrou, A; Skipper, L; Wilcock, A
British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(8): 606-U31.
10.1136/bjsm.2008.051128
CrossRef
Journal of Nursing Scholarship
Physical activity in low-income postpartum women
Wilkinson, S; Huang, CM; Walker, LO; Sterling, BS; Kim, M
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36(2): 109-114.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
Reliability of pedometer-determined free-living physical activity data in college women
Felton, GM; Tudor-Locke, C; Burkett, L
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(3): 304-308.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children?
Morgan, CF; Beighle, A; Pangrazi, RP
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(5): 407-412.

Circulation Journal
Target step count for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Ayabe, M; Brubaker, PH; Dobrosielski, D; Miller, HS; Kiyonaga, A; Shindo, M; Tanaka, H
Circulation Journal, 72(2): 299-303.

American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Translating Physical Activity Recommendations for Overweight Adolescents to Steps Per Day
Adams, MA; Caparosa, S; Thompson, S; Norman, GJ
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(2): 137-140.
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.016
CrossRef
Preventive Medicine
Commercially available pedometers: considerations for accurate step counting
Melanson, EL; Knoll, JR; Bell, ML; Donahoo, WT; Hill, JO; Nysse, LJ; Lanningham-Foster, L; Peters, JC; Levine, JA
Preventive Medicine, 39(2): 361-368.
10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.032
CrossRef
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
Validity of DynaPort GaitMonitor for assessment of spatiotemporal parameters in amputee gait
Houdijk, H; Appelman, FM; Van Velzen, JM; Van der Woude, LHV; Van Bennekom, CAM
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 45(9): 1335-1342.
10.1682/JRRD.2007.12.0209
CrossRef
Physical Therapy
Using activity monitors to measure physical activity in free-living conditions
Berlin, JE; Storti, KL; Brach, JS
Physical Therapy, 86(8): 1137-1145.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Using step activity monitoring to characterize ambulatory activity in community-dwelling older adults
Cavanaugh, JT; Coleman, KL; Gaines, JM; Laing, L; Morey, MC
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(1): 120-124.
10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00997.x
CrossRef
Impact of Technology on Sports II
The use of Micro-Electro-Mechanical-Systems technology to assess gait characteristics
Lee, JB; Burkett, B; Mellifont, RB; James, DA
Impact of Technology on Sports II, (): 181-186.

Age and Ageing
Detection of walking periods and number of steps in older adults and patients with Parkinsons disease: accuracy of a pedometer and an accelerometry-based method
Dijkstra, B; Zijlstra, W; Scherder, E; Kamsma, Y
Age and Ageing, 37(4): 436-441.
10.1093/ageing/afn097
CrossRef
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
The use of a single inertial sensor to identify stride, step, and stance durations of running gait
Lee, JB; Mellifont, RB; Burkett, BJ
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 13(2): 270-273.
10.1016/j.jsams.2009.01.005
CrossRef
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association
Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health - A systematic review
Bravata, DM; Smith-Spangler, C; Sundaram, V; Gienger, AL; Lin, N; Lewis, R; Stave, CD; Olkin, I; Sirard, JR
Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(): 2296-2304.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
Pedometry Methods for Assessing Free-Living Youth
Tudor-Locke, C; McClain, JJ; Hart, TL; Sisson, SB; Washington, TL
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80(2): 175-184.

Bmc Public Health
Design and evaluation protocol of "FATaintPHAT", a computer-tailored intervention to prevent excessive weight gain in adolescents
Ezendam, NPM; Oenema, A; Van de Looij-Jansen, PM; Brug, J
Bmc Public Health, 7(): -.
ARTN 324
CrossRef
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia - a sedentary specialty? Accelerometer assessment of the activity level of anaesthetists while at work
Cuthill, JA; Fitzpatrick, K; Glen, J
Anaesthesia, 63(3): 279-283.
10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05352.x
CrossRef
Obesity
Influence of weekend lifestyle patterns on body weight
Racette, SB; Weiss, EP; Schechtman, KB; Steger-May, K; Villareal, DT; Obert, KA; Holloszy, JO
Obesity, 16(8): 1826-1830.
10.1038/oby.2008.320
CrossRef
Bmc Health Services Research
Nurse-led motivational interviewing to change the lifestyle of patients with type 2 diabetes (MILD-project): protocol for a cluster, randomized, controlled trial on implementing lifestyle recommendations
Jansink, R; Braspenning, J; van der Weijden, T; Niessen, L; Elwyn, G; Grol, R
Bmc Health Services Research, 9(): -.
ARTN 19
CrossRef
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Accelerometer-Based Quantification of 6-Minute Walk Test Performance in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: Applicability in Telemedicine
Jehn, M; Schmidt-Trucksaess, A; Schuster, T; Hanssen, H; Weis, M; Halle, M; Koehler, F
Journal of Cardiac Failure, 15(4): 334-340.
10.1016/j.cardfail.2008.11.011
CrossRef
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Racial Discrimination and Physical Activity Among Low-Income-Housing Residents
Shelton, RC; Puleo, E; Bennett, GG; McNeill, LH; Goldman, RE; Emmons, KM
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(6): 541-545.
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.018
CrossRef
Sports Medicine
Steps Per Day The Road to Senior Health?
Aoyagi, Y; Shephard, RJ
Sports Medicine, 39(6): 423-438.

Public Health Nutrition
Effects of peer influence on dietary intake and physical activity in schoolchildren
Finnerty, T; Reeves, S; Dabinett, J; Jeanes, YM; Vogele, C
Public Health Nutrition, 13(3): 376-383.
10.1017/S1368980009991315
CrossRef
Health Education & Behavior
Impact of a Community-Based Prevention Marketing Intervention to Promote Physical Activity Among Middle-Aged Women
Sharpe, PA; Burroughs, EL; Granner, ML; Wilcox, S; Hutto, BE; Bryant, CA; Peck, L; Pekuri, L
Health Education & Behavior, 37(3): 403-423.
10.1177/1090198109341929
CrossRef
European Respiratory Journal
Quantifying physical activity in daily life with questionnaires and motion sensors in COPD
Pitta, F; Troosters, T; Probst, VS; Spruit, MA; Decramer, M; Gosselink, R
European Respiratory Journal, 27(5): 1040-1055.
10.1183/09031936.06.00064105
CrossRef
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly
Accuracy of pedometer steps and time for youth with disabilities
Beets, MW; Combs, C; Pitetti, KH; Morgan, M; Bryan, RR; Foley, JT
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 24(3): 228-244.

Preventive Medicine
Physical activity among adults with intellectual disabilities living in community settings
Peterson, JJ; Janz, KF; Lowe, JB
Preventive Medicine, 47(1): 101-106.
10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.01.007
CrossRef
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing
Position-sensing technologies for movement analysis in stroke rehabilitation
Zheng, H; Black, ND; Harris, ND
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 43(4): 413-420.

Canadian Medical Association Journal
Prescribing exercise as preventive therapy
Warburton, DER; Nicol, CW; Bredin, SSD
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174(7): 961-974.

Schizophrenia Research
Validation of a physical activity assessment tool for individuals with schizophrenia
Faulkner, G; Cohn, T; Remington, G
Schizophrenia Research, 82(): 225-231.
10.1016/j.schres.2005.10.020
CrossRef
Continuum-Journal of Media & Cultural Studies
Step-counting: The anatomo- and chrono-politics of pedometrics
Nansen, B
Continuum-Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 22(6): 793-803.
10.1080/10304310802452453
CrossRef
Preventive Medicine
Review of physical activity measurement using accelerometers in older adults: Considerations for research design and conduct
Murphy, SL
Preventive Medicine, 48(2): 108-114.
10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.12.001
CrossRef
Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology-Revue Canadienne De Physiologie Appliquee
Pedometer-determined step count guidelines for classifying walking intensity in a young ostensibly healthy population
Tudor-Locke, C; Sisson, SB; Collova, T; Lee, SM; Swan, PD
Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology-Revue Canadienne De Physiologie Appliquee, 30(6): 666-676.

Journal of Aging and Physical Activity
Activity-monitor accuracy in measuring step number and cadence in community-dwelling older adults
Grant, PM; Dall, PM; Mitchell, SL; Granat, MH
Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 16(2): 201-214.

Annals of Human Biology
UK adults exhibit higher step counts in summer compared to winter months
Hamilton, SL; Clemes, SA; Griffiths, PL
Annals of Human Biology, 35(2): 154-169.
10.1080/03014460801908058
CrossRef
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Influence of non-level walking on pedometer accuracy
Leicht, AS; Crowther, RG
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(3): 361-365.
10.1016/j.jsams.2008.01.007
CrossRef
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Using self-determination theory to promote physical activity and weight control: a randomized controlled trial in women
Silva, MN; Vieira, PN; Coutinho, SR; Minderico, CS; Matos, MG; Sardinha, LB; Teixeira, PJ
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33(2): 110-122.
10.1007/s10865-009-9239-y
CrossRef
Sports Medicine
How many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health
Tudor-Locke, C; Bassett, DR
Sports Medicine, 34(1): 1-8.

Journal of Applied Biomechanics
Validity of Four Gait Models to Estimate Walked Distance From Vertical COG Acceleration
Lopez, AM; Alvarez, D; Gonzalez, RC; Alvarez, JC
Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 24(4): 360-367.

Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism-Physiologie Appliquee Nutrition Et Metabolisme
Comparison of Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph accelerometers under free-living conditions
McClain, JJ; Craig, CL; Sisson, SB; Tudor-Locke, C
Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism-Physiologie Appliquee Nutrition Et Metabolisme, 32(4): 753-761.
10.1139/H07-060
CrossRef
Journal of Sports Sciences
Validity and reliability of kick count and rate in freestyle using inertial sensor technology
Fulton, SK; Pyne, DB; Burkett, B
Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(): 1051-1058.
10.1080/02640410902998247
CrossRef
Sports Medicine
Why Do Pedometers Work? A Reflection upon the Factors Related to Successfully Increasing Physical Activity
Tudor-Locke, C; Lutes, L
Sports Medicine, 39(): 981-993.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
How Active are Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty?: A Systematic Review
Naal, FD; Impellizzeri, FM
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(7): 1891-1904.
10.1007/s11999-009-1135-9
CrossRef
Bmc Public Health
A randomized controlled trial to evaluate self-determination theory for exercise adherence and weight control: rationale and intervention description
Silva, MN; Markland, D; Minderico, CS; Vieira, PN; Castro, MM; Coutinho, SR; Santos, TC; Matos, MG; Sardinha, LB; Teixeira, PJ
Bmc Public Health, 8(): -.
ARTN 234
CrossRef
Copd-Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Methodology for Using Long-Term Accelerometry Monitoring to Describe Daily Activity Patterns in COPD
Hecht, A; Ma, SY; Porszasz, J; Casaburi, R
Copd-Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 6(2): 121-129.
10.1080/15412550902755044
CrossRef
Preventive Medicine
Effect of teammates on changes in physical activity in a statewide campaign
Leahey, TM; Crane, MM; Pinto, AM; Weinberg, B; Kumar, R; Wing, RR
Preventive Medicine, 51(1): 45-49.
10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.004
CrossRef
International Journal of Sports Medicine
Ambulatory physical activity during United States Army Basic Combat Training
Knapik, JJ; Darakjy, S; Hauret, KG; Canada, S; Marin, R; Jones, BH
International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(2): 106-115.
10.1055/s-2006-924147
CrossRef
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Expected values for pedometer-determined physical activity in older populations
Tudor-Locke, C; Hart, TL; Washington, TL
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 6(): -.
ARTN 59
CrossRef
International Journal of Health Geographics
Comparing objective measures of environmental supports for pedestrian travel in adults
Shay, E; Rodriguez, DA; Cho, G; Clifton, KJ; Evenson, KR
International Journal of Health Geographics, 8(): -.
ARTN 62
CrossRef
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Validity of Pedometers in People With Physical Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Kenyon, A; McEvoy, M; Sprod, J; Maher, C
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 94(6): 1161-1170.
10.1016/j.apmr.2012.11.030
CrossRef
Journal of Sports Sciences
An evaluation of inertial sensor technology in the discrimination of human gait
Little, C; Lee, JB; James, DA; Davison, K
Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(): 1312-1318.
10.1080/02640414.2013.779739
CrossRef
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Pedometer steps/min in physical education: Does the pedometer matter?
Scruggs, PW
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 16(1): 36-39.
10.1016/j.jsams.2012.05.011
CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Gait Speed and Step-Count Monitor Accuracy in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
STORTI, KL; PETTEE, KK; BRACH, JS; TALKOWSKI, JB; RICHARDSON, CR; KRISKA, AM
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(1): 59-64.
10.1249/mss.0b013e318158b504
PDF (141) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer Accuracy in Nursing Home and Community-Dwelling Older Adults
CYARTO, EV; MYERS, AM; TUDOR-LOCKE, C
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(2): 205-209.

PDF (118)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer Measures of Free-Living Physical Activity: Comparison of 13 Models
SCHNEIDER, PL; CROUTER, SE; BASSETT, DR
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(2): 331-335.

PDF (141)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer Sensitivity and Specificity
Le Masurier, G
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(2): 346.

PDF (62)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer Sensitivity and Specificity: Response
Crouter, SE; Schneider, PL; Bassett, DR
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(2): 347.

PDF (62)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Physical Activity and Body Mass Index of Children in an Old Order Amish Community
BASSETT, DR; TREMBLAY, MS; ESLIGER, DW; COPELAND, JL; BARNES, JD; HUNTINGTON, GE
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(3): 410-415.
10.1249/mss.0b013e31802d3aa7
PDF (101) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Validity and Reliability of Omron Pedometers for Prescribed and Self-Paced Walking
HOLBROOK, EA; BARREIRA, TV; KANG, M
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(3): 670-674.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181886095
PDF (104) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer-Determined Physical Activity among Multiethnic Low-Income Housing Residents
BENNETT, GG; WOLIN, KY; PULEO, E; EMMONS, KM
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(4): 768-773.
10.1249/01.mss.0000210200.87328.3f
PDF (105) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Comparison of Kenz Lifecorder EX and ActiGraph Accelerometers in 10-yr-old Children
MCCLAIN, JJ; SISSON, SB; WASHINGTON, TL; CRAIG, CL; TUDOR-LOCKE, C
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(4): 630-638.
10.1249/mss.0b013e3180313056
PDF (113) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Validity of the Omron HJ-112 Pedometer during Treadmill Walking
HASSON, RE; HALLER, J; POBER, DM; STAUDENMAYER, J; FREEDSON, PS
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(4): 805-809.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818d9fc2
PDF (182) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Motion Sensor Accuracy under Controlled and Free-Living Conditions
LE MASURIER, GC; LEE, SM; TUDOR-LOCKE, C
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(5): 905-910.

PDF (363)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Comparison of the ActiGraph 7164 and the ActiGraph GT1M during Self-Paced Locomotion
KOZEY, SL; STAUDENMAYER, JW; TROIANO, RP; FREEDSON, PS
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(5): 971-976.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c29e90
PDF (245) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Objective Assessment of Activity in Older Adults at Risk for Mobility Disability
MARSH, AP; VANCE, RM; FREDERICK, TL; HESSELMANN, SA; REJESKI, WJ
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(6): 1020-1026.
10.1249/mss.0b013e3180423ac3
PDF (266) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Validity of the Actical Accelerometer Step-Count Function
ESLIGER, DW; PROBERT, A; GORBER, SC; BRYAN, S; LAVIOLETTE, M; TREMBLAY, MS
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(7): 1200-1204.
10.1249/mss.0b013e3804ec4e9
PDF (122) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Accelerometer-Determined Steps per Day inUS Adults
TUDOR-LOCKE, C; JOHNSON, WD; KATZMARZYK, PT
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(7): 1384-1391.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e318199885c
PDF (445) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Descriptive Epidemiology of Pedometer-Determined Physical Activity
TUDOR-LOCKE, C; HAM, SA; MACERA, CA; AINSWORTH, BE; KIRTLAND, KA; REIS, JP; KIMSEY, CD
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(9): 1567-1573.

PDF (185)
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Improving the Accuracy of Pedometer Used by the Elderly with the FFT Algorithm
ICHINOSEKI-SEKINE, N; KUWAE, Y; HIGASHI, Y; FUJIMOTO, T; SEKINE, M; TAMURA, T
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(9): 1674-1681.
10.1249/01.mss.0000227641.68360.c2
PDF (345) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
How Many Days of Pedometer Monitoring Predict Monthly Ambulatory Activity in Adults?
CLEMES, SA; GRIFFITHS, PL
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40(9): 1589-1595.
10.1249/MSS.0b013e318177eb96
PDF (542) | CrossRef
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Pedometer Accuracy during Walking over Different Surfaces
LEICHT, AS; CROWTHER, RG
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 39(10): 1847-1850.
10.1249/mss.0b013e3181405b9f
PDF (86) | CrossRef
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention
Activity Monitoring in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Benzo, R
Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, 29(6): 341-347.
10.1097/HCR.0b013e3181be7a3c
PDF (241) | CrossRef
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
Assessing Pedometer Accuracy while Walking, Skipping, Galloping, Sliding, and Hopping
Smith, JD; Schroeder, CA
The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(1): 276-282.
10.1519/JSC.0b013e31815f2f42
PDF (263) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:

WALKING; STEPS/DAY; TRANSPORTATION; MOTION SENSORS

©2003The American College of Sports Medicine

Login

Article Tools

Images

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.

Connect With Us