Dickinson David L, Cazier Joseph, Cech Thomas
Appalachian State University, USA.
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany.
Health Psychol Open. 2016 Nov 29;3(2):2055102916679012. doi: 10.1177/2055102916679012. eCollection 2016 Jul.
We validated a Fitbit sleep tracking device against typical research-use actigraphy across four nights on 38 young adults. Fitbit devices overestimated sleep and were less sensitive to differences compared to the Actiwatch, but nevertheless captured 88 (poor sleepers) to 98 percent (good sleepers) of Actiwatch estimated sleep time changes. Bland-Altman analysis shows that the average difference between device measurements can be sizable. We therefore do not recommend the Fitbit device when accurate point estimates are important. However, when qualitative impacts are of interest (e.g. the effect of an intervention), then the Fitbit device should at least correctly identify the effect's sign.
我们在38名年轻成年人中,通过四个晚上的时间,将一款Fitbit睡眠追踪设备与典型的用于研究的活动记录仪进行了验证。与活动记录仪相比,Fitbit设备高估了睡眠时间,并且对差异不太敏感,但仍捕捉到了活动记录仪估计睡眠时间变化的88%(睡眠质量差的人)至98%(睡眠质量好的人)。布兰德-奥特曼分析表明,设备测量之间的平均差异可能相当大。因此,当准确的点估计很重要时,我们不推荐使用Fitbit设备。然而,当关注定性影响时(例如干预的效果),那么Fitbit设备至少应该正确识别效果的正负。