Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts
BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Maganja, Stephanie A [verfasserIn] Clarke, David C [verfasserIn] Lear, Scott A [verfasserIn] Mackey, Dawn C [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: JMIR Formative Research - JMIR Publications, 2019, 4(2020), 8, p e16537 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:4 ; year:2020 ; number:8, p e16537 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.2196/16537 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ011527528 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ011527528 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502153731.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.2196/16537 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Maganja, Stephanie A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. | ||
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine | |
| 653 | 0 | |a R | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Clarke, David C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Lear, Scott A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Mackey, Dawn C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t JMIR Formative Research |d JMIR Publications, 2019 |g 4(2020), 8, p e16537 |w (DE-627)1030386161 |x 2561326X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:4 |g year:2020 |g number:8, p e16537 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 4 |j 2020 |e 8, p e16537 | ||
| author_variant |
s a m sa sam d c c dc dcc s a l sa sal d c m dc dcm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:2561326X:2020----::omtveautoocnuegaeciiyoiosonyleauttsrtsrlaiiyn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.2196/16537 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Maganja, Stephanie A verfasserin aut Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. Medicine R Clarke, David C verfasserin aut Lear, Scott A verfasserin aut Mackey, Dawn C verfasserin aut In JMIR Formative Research JMIR Publications, 2019 4(2020), 8, p e16537 (DE-627)1030386161 2561326X nnns volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 kostenfrei http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2020 8, p e16537 |
| spelling |
10.2196/16537 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Maganja, Stephanie A verfasserin aut Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. Medicine R Clarke, David C verfasserin aut Lear, Scott A verfasserin aut Mackey, Dawn C verfasserin aut In JMIR Formative Research JMIR Publications, 2019 4(2020), 8, p e16537 (DE-627)1030386161 2561326X nnns volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 kostenfrei http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2020 8, p e16537 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.2196/16537 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Maganja, Stephanie A verfasserin aut Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. Medicine R Clarke, David C verfasserin aut Lear, Scott A verfasserin aut Mackey, Dawn C verfasserin aut In JMIR Formative Research JMIR Publications, 2019 4(2020), 8, p e16537 (DE-627)1030386161 2561326X nnns volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 kostenfrei http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2020 8, p e16537 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.2196/16537 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Maganja, Stephanie A verfasserin aut Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. Medicine R Clarke, David C verfasserin aut Lear, Scott A verfasserin aut Mackey, Dawn C verfasserin aut In JMIR Formative Research JMIR Publications, 2019 4(2020), 8, p e16537 (DE-627)1030386161 2561326X nnns volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 kostenfrei http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2020 8, p e16537 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.2196/16537 doi (DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Maganja, Stephanie A verfasserin aut Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. Medicine R Clarke, David C verfasserin aut Lear, Scott A verfasserin aut Mackey, Dawn C verfasserin aut In JMIR Formative Research JMIR Publications, 2019 4(2020), 8, p e16537 (DE-627)1030386161 2561326X nnns volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 kostenfrei http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 4 2020 8, p e16537 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In JMIR Formative Research 4(2020), 8, p e16537 volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 |
| sourceStr |
In JMIR Formative Research 4(2020), 8, p e16537 volume:4 year:2020 number:8, p e16537 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Medicine R |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
JMIR Formative Research |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Maganja, Stephanie A @@aut@@ Clarke, David C @@aut@@ Lear, Scott A @@aut@@ Mackey, Dawn C @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1030386161 |
| id |
DOAJ011527528 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ011527528</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502153731.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2196/16537</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ011527528</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maganja, Stephanie A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Clarke, David C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lear, Scott A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mackey, Dawn C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">JMIR Formative Research</subfield><subfield code="d">JMIR Publications, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2020), 8, p e16537</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1030386161</subfield><subfield code="x">2561326X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:8, p e16537</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2196/16537</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">8, p e16537</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Maganja, Stephanie A |
| spellingShingle |
Maganja, Stephanie A misc Medicine misc R Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| authorStr |
Maganja, Stephanie A |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1030386161 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2561326X |
| topic_title |
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| topic |
misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Medicine misc R |
| topic_browse |
misc Medicine misc R |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
JMIR Formative Research |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1030386161 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
JMIR Formative Research |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1030386161 |
| title |
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ011527528 (DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 |
| title_full |
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| author_sort |
Maganja, Stephanie A |
| journal |
JMIR Formative Research |
| journalStr |
JMIR Formative Research |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Maganja, Stephanie A Clarke, David C Lear, Scott A Mackey, Dawn C |
| container_volume |
4 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Maganja, Stephanie A |
| doi_str_mv |
10.2196/16537 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
formative evaluation of consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults: test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counts |
| title_auth |
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| abstract |
BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. |
| abstractGer |
BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
8, p e16537 |
| title_short |
Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.2196/16537 https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590 http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/ https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Clarke, David C Lear, Scott A Mackey, Dawn C |
| author2Str |
Clarke, David C Lear, Scott A Mackey, Dawn C |
| ppnlink |
1030386161 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.2196/16537 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T20:48:47.686Z |
| _version_ |
1803592377571475456 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ011527528</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502153731.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230225s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.2196/16537</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ011527528</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maganja, Stephanie A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Formative Evaluation of Consumer-Grade Activity Monitors Worn by Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability and Criterion Validity of Step Counts</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BackgroundTo assess whether commercial-grade activity monitors are appropriate for measuring step counts in older adults, it is essential to evaluate their measurement properties in this population. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate test-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting in older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility from 6 commercial-grade activity monitors: Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One, Garmin vívofit 2, Jawbone UP2, Misfit Shine, and New-Lifestyles NL-1000. MethodsFor test-retest reliability, participants completed two 100-step overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. We tested the effects of the activity monitor and mobility status on the absolute difference in step count error (%) and computed the standard error of measurement (SEM) between repeat trials. To assess criterion validity, participants completed two 400-meter overground walks at a usual pace while wearing all monitors. The first walk was continuous; the second walk incorporated interruptions to mimic the conditions of daily walking. Criterion step counts were from the researcher tally count. We estimated the effects of the activity monitor, mobility status, and walk interruptions on step count error (%). We also generated Bland-Altman plots and conducted equivalence tests. ResultsA total of 36 individuals participated (n=20 intact mobility and n=16 limited mobility; 19/36, 53% female) with a mean age of 71.4 (SD 4.7) years and BMI of 29.4 (SD 5.9) kg/m2. Considering test-retest reliability, there was an effect of the activity monitor (P<.001). The Fitbit One (1.0%, 95% CI 0.6% to 1.3%), the New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (2.6%, 95% CI 1.3% to 3.9%), and the Garmin vívofit 2 (6.0%, 95 CI 3.2% to 8.8%) had the smallest mean absolute differences in step count errors. The SEM values ranged from 1.0% (Fitbit One) to 23.5% (Jawbone UP2). Regarding criterion validity, all monitors undercounted the steps. Step count error was affected by the activity monitor (P<.001) and walk interruptions (P=.02). Three monitors had small mean step count errors: Misfit Shine (−1.3%, 95% CI −19.5% to 16.8%), Fitbit One (−2.1%, 95% CI −6.1% to 2.0%), and New-Lifestyles NL-1000 (−4.3%, 95 CI −18.9% to 10.3%). Mean step count error was larger during interrupted walking than continuous walking (−5.5% vs −3.6%; P=.02). Bland-Altman plots illustrated nonsystematic bias and small limits of agreement for Fitbit One and Jawbone UP2. Mean step count error lay within an equivalence bound of ±5% for Fitbit One (P<.001) and Misfit Shine (P=.001). ConclusionsTest-retest reliability and criterion validity of step counting varied across 6 consumer-grade activity monitors worn by older adults with self-reported intact and limited mobility. Walk interruptions increased the step count error for all monitors, whereas mobility status did not affect the step count error. The hip-worn Fitbit One was the only monitor with high test-retest reliability and criterion validity.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Clarke, David C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lear, Scott A</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mackey, Dawn C</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">JMIR Formative Research</subfield><subfield code="d">JMIR Publications, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">4(2020), 8, p e16537</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1030386161</subfield><subfield code="x">2561326X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:4</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:8, p e16537</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.2196/16537</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/4b8efd50d9dd4df4a7a9d988c7865590</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://formative.jmir.org/2020/8/e16537/</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2561-326X</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">4</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">8, p e16537</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400589 |