Open Collections

UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Validity of smartphone pedometer applications Orr, Krystn; Howe, Holly S.; Omran, Janine; Smith, Kristina A.; Palmateer, Tess M.; Ma, Alvin E.; Faulkner, Guy E. J., 1970-

Abstract

Background: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). Participants Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)]. Methods Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures. Results Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer. Conclusions Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.

Item Metadata

Title
Validity of smartphone pedometer applications
Creator
Orr, Krystn; Howe, Holly S.; Omran, Janine; Smith, Kristina A.; Palmateer, Tess M.; Ma, Alvin E.; Faulkner, Guy E. J., 1970-
Publisher
BioMed Central
Date Issued
2015-11-30
Description
Background: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). Participants Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)]. Methods Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures. Results Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer. Conclusions Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.
Subject
Physical activity; Activity monitoring; Self-monitoring; Walking; Running
Genre
Article
Type
Text
Language
eng
Date Available
2016-08-18
Provider
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Rights
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
DOI
10.14288/1.0308628
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/2429/58847
Affiliation
Education, Faculty of; Non UBC; Kinesiology, School of
Citation
BMC Research Notes. 2015 Nov 30;8(1):733
Publisher DOI
10.1186/s13104-015-1705-8
Peer Review Status
Reviewed
Scholarly Level
Faculty
Copyright Holder
Orr et al.
Rights URI
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Aggregated Source Repository
DSpace

Item Media

Item Citations and Data

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)