Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025
Substantiating Appropriate Motion Capture Techniques for the Assessment of Nordic Walking Gait and Posture in Older Adults
Published on: May 12, 2016
Agreement of Two Physical Behaviour Monitors for Characterising Posture and Stepping in Children Aged 6-12 Years
Esraa Burahmah1, Sivaramkumar Shanmugam1, Daniel Williams1
1School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK.
Insights
The activPAL4 physical behavior monitor shows some differences compared to the activPAL3, particularly in standing time and step count. These variations are important for researchers comparing data between these devices.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical Engineering
- Physical Activity Measurement
- Wearable Technology
Background:
- Ensuring compatibility between new and existing physical behavior measurement devices is crucial for data consistency.
- Previous versions of activPAL monitors have been widely used in research.
- Advancements in technology necessitate validation of new devices against established ones.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the agreement between the activPAL4 and activPAL3 physical behavior monitors.
- To evaluate device compatibility in both laboratory and free-living conditions.
- To inform researchers about potential discrepancies when comparing data from different activPAL models.
Main Methods:
- Recruited 15 healthy children (6-12 years) to wear both activPAL4 and activPAL3 monitors.
- Monitors were worn during standardized and non-standardized activities in a laboratory setting.
- Agreement was assessed over a median of 3 days in a free-living environment using Bland-Altman plots, sensitivity, and PPV.
Main Results:
- For standardized lab activities, sitting and stepping time showed good agreement (±5%).
- ActivPAL4 recorded lower standing time (-6.4% lab, -7.6% free-living) and higher step counts (+4.9% non-standardized lab, +2.2% free-living) than activPAL3.
- Sensitivity and PPV were >90% for standardized activities but lower for non-standardized ones.
Conclusions:
- Differences exist in physical behavior outcomes measured by activPAL4 and activPAL3.
- Researchers must consider these discrepancies when comparing study results across different activPAL versions.
- Validation studies are essential for new generations of physical activity monitors.
Abstract:
All new physical behaviour measurement devices should be assessed for compatibility with previous devices. Agreement was assessed between the activPAL4TM and activPAL3TM physical behavior monitors within a laboratory and a multi-day free-living context. Healthy children aged 6-12 years performed standardised (sitting, standing, stepping) (12 min) and non-standardised (6 min) activities in a laboratory and a multi-day (median 3 days) free-living assessment whilst wearing both monitors. Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, sensitivity, and the positive predictive value (PPV). There were 15 children (7M/8F, 8.4 ± 1.8 years old) recruited. For the laboratory-based standardised activities, sitting time, stepping time, and fast walking/jogging step count were all within ±5% agreement. However, the activPAL4TM standing time was lower (-6.4%) and normal speed walking step count higher (+7.8%) than those of the activPAL3TM. For non-standardised activities, a higher step count was recorded by the activPAL4TM (+4.9%). The standardised activity sensitivity and PPV were all >90%, but the non-standardised activity values were lower. For free-living agreement, the standing time was lower (-7.6%) and step count higher (all steps + 2.2%, steps with cadence >100 step/min + 6.6%) for the activPAL4TM than the activPAL3TM. This study highlights differences in outcomes as determined by the activPAL4TM and activPAL3TM, which should be considered when comparing outcomes between studies.
More Related Videos
06:28Author Spotlight: Developing Low-Tech Balance Assessment Methods for Broad-Spectrum Healthcare Applications
Published on: September 1, 2023
08:24Sit-to-stand-and-walk from 120% Knee Height: A Novel Approach to Assess Dynamic Postural Control Independent of Lead-limb
Published on: August 30, 2016