IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0189304.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproducibility of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time over two seasons in children; Comparing a day-by-day and a week-by-week approach

Author

Listed:
  • Eivind Aadland
  • Lars Bo Andersen
  • Turid Skrede
  • Ulf Ekelund
  • Sigmund Alfred Anderssen
  • Geir Kåre Resaland

Abstract

Introduction: Knowledge of reproducibility of accelerometer-determined physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (SED) estimates are a prerequisite to conduct high-quality epidemiological studies. Yet, estimates of reproducibility might differ depending on the approach used to analyze the data. The aim of the present study was to determine the reproducibility of objectively measured PA and SED in children by directly comparing a day-by-day and a week-by-week approach to data collected over two weeks during two different seasons 3–4 months apart. Methods: 676 11-year-old children from the Active Smarter Kids study conducted in Sogn og Fjordane county, Norway, performed 7 days of accelerometer monitoring (ActiGraph GT3X+) during January-February and April-May 2015. Reproducibility was calculated using a day-by-day and a week-by-week approach applying mixed effect modelling and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula, and reported using intra-class correlation (ICC), Bland Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Results: Applying a week-by-week approach, no variables provided ICC estimates ≥ 0.70 for one week of measurement in any model (ICC = 0.29–0.66 not controlling for season; ICC = 0.49–0.67 when controlling for season). LoA for these models approximated a factor of 1.3–1.7 of the sample PA level standard deviations. Compared to the week-by-week approach, the day-by-day approach resulted in too optimistic reliability estimates (ICC = 0.62–0.77 not controlling for season; ICC = 0.64–0.77 when controlling for season). Conclusions: Reliability is lower when analyzed over different seasons and when using a week-by-week approach, than when applying a day-by-day approach and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula to estimate reliability over a short monitoring period. We suggest a day-by-day approach and the Spearman Brown prophecy formula to determine reliability be used with caution. Trial Registration: The study is registered in Clinicaltrials.gov 7th April 2014 with identification number NCT02132494.

Suggested Citation

  • Eivind Aadland & Lars Bo Andersen & Turid Skrede & Ulf Ekelund & Sigmund Alfred Anderssen & Geir Kåre Resaland, 2017. "Reproducibility of objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time over two seasons in children; Comparing a day-by-day and a week-by-week approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189304
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189304&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0189304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eivind Aadland & Einar Ylvisåker, 2015. "Reliability of Objectively Measured Sedentary Time and Physical Activity in Adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Carly Rich & Marco Geraci & Lucy Griffiths & Francesco Sera & Carol Dezateux & Mario Cortina-Borja, 2013. "Quality Control Methods in Accelerometer Data Processing: Defining Minimum Wear Time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-8, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189304. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.