Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Apr 8;18(8):3914. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18083914.
Previous studies have examined the ability of the Fitbit to measure physical activity compared to research-grade accelerometers. However, few have examined whether Fitbits accurately measure sedentary behavior. This study examined whether the Fitbit Charge 3 adequately quantifies sedentary behavior compared to the gold standard in objectively measured sedentary behavior assessment, the activPAL. Eleven adults wore a Fitbit Charge 3 and activPAL device for 14 days and self-reported their sedentary behavior each week. ActivPAL epoch data were summed into minute-by-minute data and processed with two cutpoints ( and ) to compare to Fitbit data. Paired t-tests were used to examine differences between the two devices for sedentary behavior variables. Intraclass correlations were used to examine device agreement. There was no significant difference in sedentary time between and Fitbit data, but estimated significantly lower sedentary time than Fitbit. Intraclass correlations showed high agreement. We suggest that Fitbit could replace activPAL when measuring total sedentary time.
先前的研究已经检验了 Fitbit 测量体力活动的能力与研究级加速度计相比。然而，很少有研究检验 Fitbit 是否能准确测量久坐行为。本研究旨在检验 Fitbit Charge 3 在测量久坐行为方面与客观测量久坐行为评估的金标准 activPAL 相比是否足够准确。11 名成年人佩戴 Fitbit Charge 3 和 activPAL 设备 14 天，并每周自我报告他们的久坐行为。activPAL 时间戳数据被汇总为每分钟数据，并使用两个切点（和）进行处理，以与 Fitbit 数据进行比较。配对 t 检验用于检验两种设备在久坐行为变量方面的差异。采用组内相关系数来检验设备的一致性。和 Fitbit 数据之间的久坐时间没有显著差异，但估计的久坐时间明显低于 Fitbit。组内相关系数显示高度一致性。我们建议在测量总久坐时间时，Fitbit 可以替代 activPAL。
