4.3 Article

Test-Retest Reliability of activPAL in Measuring Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity in People With Type 2 Diabetes

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 1134-1139

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.2019-0506

Keywords

sitting; standing; stepping; activity monitor

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University through the Fast-track Research Funding Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To investigate how changes in sedentary behavior relate to health outcomes, it is important to establish the test-retest reliability of activity monitors in measuring habitual sedentary behavior in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) as a prerequisite for interpreting this information. Thus, the authors' objective was to examine the test-retest reliability of a common activity monitor (activPAL (TM)) in measuring sedentary behavior and physical activity in people with T2D. Methods: Sedentary-time, standing-time, stepping-time, step-count, and sit-to-stand transitions were obtained from two 7-day assessment periods separated by at least 1 week. Test-retest reliability was determined with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to compare sedentary and activity measures between the 2 time points. Results: A total of 30 participants with self-reported T2D completed the study (age 65 [6] y, 63% women, body mass index 33.3 [5] kg/m(2)). High test-retest reliability was found for sedentary-time (ICC = .79; 95% confidence interval [CI], .61-.89) and standing-time (ICC = .74; 95% CI,.53-.87). Very high test-retest reliability was found for stepping-time (ICC = .90; 95% CI, .81-.95), step-count (ICC = .91; 95% CI, .83-.96), and sit-to-stand transitions (ICC = .90; 95% CI, .79-.95). Conclusion: The activPAL (TM) device showed high to very high test-retest reliability in measuring all tested activity categories in people with T2D.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available