Hurricane Sally Update
The ActiGraph office is open, and we have resumed normal operations as of Monday, September 21st. Shipping delays are still possible as our community recovers from the storm. If you need immediate assistance, please contact us by email at firstname.lastname@example.org and we will respond as quickly as possible. Thank you for your continued support.
Different Accelerometry Interpretation Methods Alter Physical Activity Classifications
- Presented on May 30, 2014
Background: Multiple cutpoints exist for reducing raw accelerometry data into speciﬁc intensity categories (i.e. light, moderate, and vigorous). Historically, Freedson et al. (1998) uniaxial cutpoints have been most readily used. Multiple triaxial cutpoints now exist, but no standard interpretation methods have been accepted. Theoretically, using different interpretation methods may result in signiﬁcantly different physical activity (PA) classiﬁcations from the same raw data.
Purpose: To compare the effect of using three different sets of cutpoints with regard to classifying subjects as meeting or not meeting PA guidelines.
Methods: Subjects (n=84; age 45.5±20.5 yr, BMI 24.9±4.5 kg/m2) wore an initialised (60Hz) ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer, positioned at their right hip, for a minimum of 4 days with 10 hours valid wear-time per day. Raw accelerometry data were processed in Actilife v6.8.0 using a 60s epoch. PA was quantiﬁed by scoring data using generalised cutpoints developed by Sasaki et al. (2011) and age-speciﬁc cutpoints developed by Miller et al. (2010) and Santos-Lozano et al. (2013). Subjects were classiﬁed as active or inactive based on the criteria of accumulating >150 minutes/week of MVPA, or >75 minutes/week of vigorous PA, in >10 minute bouts. PA classiﬁcations were compared across the three cutpoint outputs using a Chi-Square test, with signiﬁcance set at p<0.05.
Results: The number of subjects classiﬁed as active were signiﬁcantly different between each of the three sets of cutpoints (p<0.001). The number of subjects classiﬁed as active across the three methods were 28, 31, and 35 for Miller et al., Santos-Lozano et al., and Sasaki et al., respectively.
Conclusion: The use of different accelerometry cutpoints alters the classiﬁcation of an individual’s PA status. A consensus should be established for cutpoints, to enable researchers and clinicians to accurately evaluate activity status. Future research should examine the use of relative intensity cutpoints to negate the misclassiﬁcation of those meeting and not meeting PA guidelines.