Calibration and Cross-Validation of the ActiGraph wGT3X+ Accelerometer for the Estimation of Physical Activity Intensity in Children with Intellectual Disabilities.

BACKGROUND

Valid objective measurement is integral to increasing our understanding of physical activity and sedentary behaviours. However, no population-specific cut points have been calibrated for children with intellectual disabilities. Therefore, this study aimed to calibrate and cross-validate the first population-specific accelerometer intensity cut points for children with intellectual disabilities.

METHODS

Fifty children with intellectual disabilities were randomly assigned to the calibration (n = 36; boys = 28, 9.53±1.08yrs) or cross-validation (n = 14; boys = 9, 9.57±1.16yrs) group. Participants completed a semi-structured school-based activity session, which included various activities ranging from sedentary to vigorous intensity. Direct observation (SOFIT tool) was used to calibrate the ActiGraph wGT3X+, which participants wore on the right hip. Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analyses determined the optimal cut points for sedentary, moderate, and vigorous intensity activity for the vertical axis and vector magnitude. Classification agreement was investigated using sensitivity, specificity, total agreement, and Cohen's kappa scores against the criterion measure of SOFIT.

RESULTS

The optimal (AUC = .87-.94) vertical axis cut points (cpm) were ≤507 (sedentary), 1008-2300 (moderate), and ≥2301 (vigorous), which demonstrated high sensitivity (81-88%) and specificity (81-85%). The optimal (AUC = .86-.92) vector magnitude cut points (cpm) of ≤1863 (sedentary), 2610-4214 (moderate), and ≥4215 (vigorous) demonstrated comparable, albeit marginally lower, accuracy than the vertical axis cut points (sensitivity = 80-86%; specificity = 77-82%). Classification agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect (κ = .51-.85) with high sensitivity and specificity, and confirmed the trend that accuracy increased with intensity, and vertical axis cut points provide higher classification agreement than vector magnitude cut points.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first valid methods of interpreting accelerometer output in children with intellectual disabilities. The calibrated physical activity cut points are notably higher than existing cut points, thus raising questions on the validity of previous low physical activity estimates in children with intellectual disabilities that were based on typically developing cut points.