Comparison of Wear Compliance Across Three Accelerometer Protocols in Adolescents

Introduction. While physical inactivity remains a pervasive public health problem, issues surrounding measuring physical activity plague researchers. Accelerometers are the gold-standard tool to assess physical activity and consumer-grade devices are increasingly used in research. However, accelerometer wear compliance varies by population and is influenced by factors, such as social acceptability, among others. Non-compliance threatens data validity and limits the usefulness regarding health promotion. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the effects of three consumer-grade accelerometer protocols on wear compliance among adolescents. Methods. Study participants were provided a Garmin VivoFit4 accelerometer watch; participant wear compliance, steps, and physical activity were measured during the study period. Three methods of data collection were used to assess physical activity: (1) continuous wear, self-sync (n = 59); (2) continuous wear, researcher-sync (n = 160); and (3) intermittent wear, researcher-sync (n = 62). A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to assess between-group differences. Results. Mean valid days were significantly higher at baseline (F = 27.52, p < .001) and endpoint (F = 9.98, p < .001) for the intermittent wear, researcher-synced condition than for both the continuous wear conditions, and significantly higher at midpoint (F = 4.05, p < .05) for the continuous wear, research-synced condition. Conclusion. Study findings suggest that an intermittent wear, researcher-synced protocol significantly improves wear compliance and meets recommendations needed for reliable estimates of physical activity compared with continuous wear protocols as measured by mean valid days. Implementing protocols to increase wear compliance will improve data for interventional studies and health promotion capabilities of consumer-grade accelerometers.