Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary table of level 2 validity evidence of the measurement tools

From: A systematic review of the validity, reliability, and feasibility of measurement tools used to assess the physical activity and sedentary behaviour of pre-school aged children

Method

Outcome measures

References

SB

Posture allocation

LPA

MVPA

TPA

Levels of activity

Step counts

Direct observation

 Fargo Activity Timesampling Survey (FATS-continuous sampling)

     

 

[72]

Combined heart rate and accelerometer

 Actiheart

   

   

[57]

Heart rate monitor (HRM)

 Polar Vantage XL Monitor

   

   

[73]

Accelerometers

 Actigraph (GT3X+)

 

  

[74]

 Actigraph (GT3X)

 

   

[61, 75,76,77]

 Actigraph (GT1M)

   

[78,79,80]

 Actigraph (MTI/CSA)

 

 

[81,82,83,84,85]

 Actical

 

 

 

[57, 62, 86]

 ActivPAL

 

   

[65, 78, 87,88,89]

 Fitbit (Flex)

 

  

[90]

 Fitbit (Zip)

      

[91]

 NewLifestyles NL-1000

   

   

[92]

 Triaxial Research Tracker 3 (RT3)

   

   

[57, 80]

 Actiwatch (Spectrum)

 

   

[76]

 Actiwatch (MiniMitter)

     

 

[93]

 Actiwatch (AW16)

     

 

[83]

 Actiwatch L

     

 

[94]

Pedometers

 Yamax Digiwalker

(SW-200)

     

[82, 95,96,97]

 Yamasa AM-5 Pedometer

   

   

[98]

 MVP 4 Walk4Life Digital

   

  

[99]

Proxy reported measurement tools

 Teacher/mother reported habitual PA

    

 

[98, 100]

  1. Published cut points used:1 Evenson et al., 2008 [71]; 2 Johansson et al., 2015 [101]; 3Pate et al., 2006 [58]; 4 Sirard et al., 2005 [85]; 5Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2011 [102]; 6Puyau et al., 2002 [70]; 7Reilly et al., 2003 [84]; 8Freedson et al., 2005 [103]; 9Adolph et al., 2012 [57]; 10 Pfeiffer et al., 2006 [63]; 11 Schaefer et al., 2014 [104]; 12Vanhelst et al., 2000 [105]; 13Rowlands et al.,2004 [106]; 14Sun et al., 2008 [107]; 15Chu et al.,2007 [108]; 16Ekblom et al., 2012 [109]
  2. *Methodology used to assess the ability of the tool is detailed in the methods above and is indicated in the summary table as:
  3. Good = Moderate= Weak=
  4. Key for colour of boxes: = evidence from ≥3 studies
  5. = evidence from <3 studies
  6. This table shows a summary of the results of studies where they aimed to compare a particular measurement tool (e.g. Actigraph GT3X accelerometer) against direct observation (or electrodiagram for the heart rate monitor). The summary ratings were based on the quality of the tools for this specific measurement property. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘good’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘good’. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘moderate’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘moderate’. Where the measurement tool was deemed ‘weak’ in the majority of the studies, the summary assessment was deemed ‘weak’. In instances where the measurement tool had mixed evidence in the studies, such as studies with outcomes of ‘weak’ and ‘moderate’, or ‘moderate’ and ‘good’, the overall assessment was deemed to be the most positive of the two outcomes. All tools of reasonable quality where any evidence was available are included in this table, including where only one or two studies reported that result
Back to article page

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us