Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study.
<h4>Background</h4>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 criter...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659 |
| _version_ | 1818735855716532224 |
|---|---|
| author | Thomas Radtke Manuel Rodriguez Julia Braun Holger Dressel |
| author_facet | Thomas Radtke Manuel Rodriguez Julia Braun Holger Dressel |
| author_sort | Thomas Radtke |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-18T00:27:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-400a11a36a34452294e9fa637fd8cd80 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-18T00:27:53Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-400a11a36a34452294e9fa637fd8cd802022-12-21T21:27:12ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032021-01-01166e025265910.1371/journal.pone.0252659Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study.Thomas RadtkeManuel RodriguezJulia BraunHolger Dressel<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659 |
| spellingShingle | Thomas Radtke Manuel Rodriguez Julia Braun Holger Dressel Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. PLoS ONE |
| title | Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. |
| title_full | Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. |
| title_fullStr | Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. |
| title_short | Criterion validity of the ActiGraph and activPAL in classifying posture and motion in office-based workers: A cross-sectional laboratory study. |
| title_sort | criterion validity of the actigraph and activpal in classifying posture and motion in office based workers a cross sectional laboratory study |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252659 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT thomasradtke criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy AT manuelrodriguez criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy AT juliabraun criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy AT holgerdressel criterionvalidityoftheactigraphandactivpalinclassifyingpostureandmotioninofficebasedworkersacrosssectionallaboratorystudy |