4.4 Article

Does an accelerometer accurately measure steps taken under controlled conditions in adults with mild multiple sclerosis?

Journal

DISABILITY AND HEALTH JOURNAL
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 52-57

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2010.02.003

Keywords

Ambulation; Measurement; Physical Activity; Walking

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Accurate measurement is required by researchers and clinicians who are interested in the physical activity behavior of individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). Advances in technology have resulted in an increased number of motion sensors such as pedometers and accelerometers that are worn on the body and that measure bodily movement. Accelerometers are becoming less expensive and more user-friendly, but there is limited evidence regarding the accuracy of measurement in persons with MS. Objective: The present study examined the accuracy of an ActiGraph accelerometer for measuring steps taken during controlled conditions in persons with MS compared with a sample of individuals without MS. Methods: The participants were 24 adults with mild MS and 24 adults without MS who undertook three 6-minute periods of walking at 54, 80, and 107 m.min(-1) on a motor-driven treadmill. We measured steps taken through observation and an ActiGraph model 7164 accelerometer worn around the waist above the right hip. Results: The accelerometer accurately measured steps during moderate (80 m.min(-1)) and fast (107 m.min(-1)) walking in both persons with MS and control subjects. There was a small degree of underestimation of step counts (approximate to 4% error) for the accelerometer during slower walking (54 m.min(-1)) in both persons with MS and control subjects. Conclusions: Such findings support the accuracy of a waist worn ActiGraph accelerometer for the measurement of steps in persons with MS and control subjects. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available