Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review
Do you wish to request the book?
Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Physical Activity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Which Real-World Accelerometry Measures Are Robust? A Systematic Review
2023
Overview
Measurement of real-world physical activity (PA) data using accelerometry in older adults is informative and clinically relevant, but not without challenges. This review appraises the reliability and validity of accelerometry-based PA measures of older adults collected in real-world conditions. Eight electronic databases were systematically searched, with 13 manuscripts included. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability were: walking duration (0.94 to 0.95), lying duration (0.98 to 0.99), sitting duration (0.78 to 0.99) and standing duration (0.98 to 0.99). ICCs for relative reliability ranged from 0.24 to 0.82 for step counts and 0.48 to 0.86 for active calories. Absolute reliability ranged from 5864 to 10,832 steps and for active calories from 289 to 597 kcal. ICCs for responsiveness for step count were 0.02 to 0.41, and for active calories 0.07 to 0.93. Criterion validity for step count ranged from 0.83 to 0.98. Percentage of agreement for walking ranged from 63.6% to 94.5%; for lying 35.6% to 100%, sitting 79.2% to 100%, and standing 38.6% to 96.1%. Construct validity between step count and criteria for moderate-to-vigorous PA was rs = 0.68 and 0.72. Inter-rater reliability and criterion validity for walking, lying, sitting and standing duration are established. Criterion validity of step count is also established. Clinicians and researchers may use these measures with a limited degree of confidence. Further work is required to establish these properties and to extend the repertoire of PA measures beyond “volume” counts to include more nuanced outcomes such as intensity of movement and duration of postural transitions.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
