3.8 Article

Comparison of Actiwatch® activity monitor and Children's Activity Rating Scale in children

Journal

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 1794-1797

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005768-200010000-00021

Keywords

energy expenditure; observation

Categories

Funding

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR45310] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The Children's Activity Rating Scale (CARS) is a rating scale that is used in direct observation of physical activity in children. Direct observation is costly and tedious, and accuracy may decrease as the observation period lengthens. Recently, motion sensors have gained acceptance for assessment of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to compare 6 h of activity levels using simultaneous monitoring of preschool aged children with CARS and the Actiwatch (Mini-mitter Company Inc.) activity monitor. Methods: A total of 40 children had 5-6 h (mean of 5.9 h) of direct observation while wearing a monitor on the waist. Simultaneous 3-min mean CARS scores and 3-min activity counts were matched for each subject. Results: The range for the mean 3-min CARS scores ranged from 1.00 to 4.50. The 3-min activity counts ranged from 0 to 9.695 with a mean of 670 (median 243). The within child correlations between the 3-min CARS score and the 3-min sensor readings ranged from 0.03 to 0.92 (median of 0.74). Ne found the correlation coefficients were higher in those children who were more active, probably due to the larger ranges in the CARS scores. When using mixed model repeated measures, sensor readings were significantly associated with CARS (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our results indicate that the 3-min CARS score correlates with 3-min activity counts, favoring the use of the activity monitors in assessing physical activity in preschool-aged children.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available