Dataset Information

Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Radtke T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8171934 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSedentary Behaviour (SB) gets an increasing attention from ergonomics and public health due to its associated detrimental health effects. A large number of studies record SB with ActiGraph counts-per-minute cut-points, but we still lack valid information about what the cut-points tell us about office work. This study therefore analysed the concurrent and discriminant validity of commonly used cut-points to measure SB, activity level, and posture.MethodsThirty office workers completed four office tasks at three workplaces (conventional chair, activity-promoting chair, and standing desk) while wearing two ActiGraphs (waist and wrist). Indirect calorimetry and prescribed posture served as reference criteria. Generalized Estimation Equations analysed workplace and task effects on the activity level and counts-per-minute, and kappa statistics and ROC curves analysed the cut-point validity.ResultsThe activity-promoting chair (p < 0.001, ES ≥ 0.66) but not the standing desk (p = 1.0) increased the activity level, and both these workplaces increased the waist (p ≤ 0.003, ES ≥ 0.63) but not the wrist counts-per-minute (p = 0.74) compared to the conventional chair. The concurrent and discriminant validity was higher for activity level (kappa: 0.52-0.56 and 0.38-0.45, respectively) than for SB and posture (kappa ≤0.35 and ≤ 0.19, respectively). Furthermore, the discriminant validity for activity level was higher for task effects (kappa: 0.42-0.48) than for workplace effects (0.13-0.24).ConclusionsActiGraph counts-per-minute for waist and wrist placement were - independently of the chosen cut-point - a measure for activity level and not for SB or posture, and the cut-points performed better to detect task effects than workplace effects. Waist cut-points were most valid to measure the activity level in conventional seated office work, but they showed severe limitations for sit-stand desks. None of the placements was valid to detect the increased activity on the activity-promoting chair. Caution should therefore be paid when analysing the effect of workplace interventions on activity level with ActiGraph waist and wrist cut-points.

Project description:BackgroundAs sedentary behavior is a global health issue, there is a need for methods of self-reported sitting assessment. The accuracy and reliability of these methods should also be tested in various populations and different cultural contexts. This study examined the validity of long-term and short-term recall of occupational sitting time in Finnish and Chinese subgroups.MethodsTwo cohort groups of office-based workers (58.6% female, age range 22-67 years) participated: a Finnish group (FIN, n = 34) and a Chinese group (CHI, n = 36). Long-term (past 3-month sitting) and short-term (daily sitting assessed on 5 consecutive days) single-item measures were used to assess self-reported occupational sitting time. Values from each participant were compared to objectively measured occupational sitting time assessed via thigh-mounted accelerometers, with Spearman's rho (ρ) used to assess validity and the Bland-Altman method used to evaluate agreement. Coefficients of variation depicted day-to-day variability of time spent on sitting at work.ResultsIn the total study sample, the results showed that both long-term and short-term recall correlated with accelerometer-derived sitting time (ρ = 0.532, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.336-0.684, p< 0.001; ρ = 0.533, 95%CI: 0.449-0.607, p< 0.001, respectively). Compared to objectively measured sitting time, self-reported occupational sitting time was 2.4% (95%CI: -0.5% to 5.3%, p = 0.091) and 2.2% (95%CI: 0.7%-3.6%, p = 0.005) greater for long-term and short-term recall, respectively. The agreement level was within the range -21.2% to 25.9% for long-term recall, and -24.2% to 28.5% for short-term recall. During a 5-day work week, day-to-day variation of sitting time was 9.4% ± 11.4% according to short-term recall and 10.4% ± 8.4% according to accelerometry-derived occupational sitting time.ConclusionOverall, both long-term and short-term self-reported instruments provide acceptable measures of occupational sitting time in an office-based workplace, but their utility at the individual level is limited due to large variability.