Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center, Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Med Eng Phys. 2013 Oct;35(10):1499-505. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2013.04.004. Epub 2013 May 16.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of assessing activities, movement intensity (MI) and energy expenditure (EE) measured by accelerometry. 28 Able-bodied participants performed standardized tasks while an accelerometer was worn and oxygen uptake was measured. After uploading the accelerometer data to the manufacturer's website, a report was received that gave minute-by-minute MI and EE of the performed activities. Validity was assessed by comparing reported activities and EE with the actual performed activities and calculated EE from the oxygen uptake, and by testing whether MI differed between walking velocities and cycling resistances. Reliability was assessed by performing the protocol twice. Except for standing (classified predominantly (82%) as sitting), most activities were categorized mainly correctly (93-100%). A difference in MI was detected between walking speeds but not between cycling resistances. EE was overestimated for walking (ICC=0.54) and underestimated for cycling (ICC=0.03). Reliability of MI was high (ICC=0.91) but reliability for the relative time spent in activities or the step count was weak to moderate. In conclusion, most activities were categorized correctly, MI seemed to be valid and reliable but reliability is low for relative time spent in activities and EE cannot be estimated well.
本研究旨在评估加速度计测量的活动、运动强度（MI）和能量消耗（EE）的有效性和可靠性。28 名健全参与者在佩戴加速度计和测量耗氧量的同时完成了标准化任务。将加速度计数据上传到制造商的网站后，会收到一份报告，报告给出了活动的每分钟 MI 和 EE。通过将报告的活动和 EE 与实际进行的活动以及从耗氧量计算的 EE 进行比较，以及通过测试 MI 是否因步行速度和自行车阻力而不同，评估了有效性。通过两次执行方案来评估可靠性。除了站立（主要归类为坐着（82%））外，大多数活动的分类主要正确（93-100%）。在步行速度之间检测到 MI 存在差异，但在自行车阻力之间没有差异。对于步行（ICC=0.54）EE 被高估，对于自行车（ICC=0.03）EE 被低估。MI 的可靠性较高（ICC=0.91），但活动相对时间或步数的可靠性较弱至中等。总之，大多数活动都被正确分类，MI 似乎是有效的和可靠的，但活动相对时间和 EE 的可靠性较低，无法很好地估计。
