Wrist Acceleration Cut Points for Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in Youth

Authors

Anthony D. Okely, University of WollongongFollow
Marijka Batterham, University of WollongongFollow
Trina Hinkley, Deakin UniversityFollow
Ulf Ekelund, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, University of Cambridge
Soren Brage, University of Cambridge
John J. Reilly, University of Strathclyde
Stewart Trost, Queensland University of TechnologyFollow
Rachel A. Jones, University of WollongongFollow
Xanne Janssen, University of Wollongong, University of StrathclydeFollow
Dylan P. Cliff, University of WollongongFollow
Christiana van Loo, University of WollongongFollow

RIS ID

122411

Publication Details

Okely, A. D., Batterham, M. J., Hinkley, T., Ekelund, U., Brage, S., Reilly, J. J., Trost, S. G., Jones, R. A., Janssen, X., Cliff, D. P. & van Loo, C. Maria Theodora. (2018). Wrist Acceleration Cut Points for Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in Youth. Medicine And Science In Sports And Exercise, 50 (3), 609-616.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the validity of wrist acceleration cut points for classifying moderate (MPA), vigorous (VPA), and moderate-to-vigorous (MVPA) physical activity.

Methods: Fifty-seven children (5-12 yr) completed 15 semistructured activities. Three sets of wrist cut points (>192 mg, >250 mg, and >314 mg), previously developed using Euclidian norm minus one (ENMO₁₉₂₊), GENEActiv software (GENEA₂₅₀₊), and band-pass filter followed by Euclidian norm (BFEN₃₁₄₊), were evaluated against indirect calorimetry. Analyses included classification accuracy, equivalence testing, and Bland-Altman procedures.

Results: All cut points classified MPA, VPA, and MVPA with substantial accuracy (ENMO₁₉₂₊: K = 0.72 [95% confidence interval = 0.72-0.73], MVPA: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) = 0.85 [0.85-0.86]; GENEA₂₅₀₊: K = 0.75 [0.74-0.76], MVPA: ROC-AUC = 0.85 [0.85-0.86]; BFEN₃₁₄₊: K = 0.73 [0.72-0.74], MVPA: ROC-AUC = 0.86 [0.86-0.87]). BFEN₃₁₄₊ misclassified 19.7% non-MVPA epochs as MPA, whereas ENMO₁₉₂₊ and GENEA₂₅₀₊ misclassified 32.6% and 26.5% of MPA epochs as non-MVPA, respectively. Group estimates of MPA time were equivalent (P314+ MPA cut point (mean bias = -1.5%, limits of agreement [LoA] = -57.5% to 60.6%), whereas estimates of MVPA time were equivalent (P192+ (mean bias = -1.1%, LoA = -53.7% to 55.9%) and GENEA₂₅₀₊ (mean bias = 2.2%, LoA = -56.5% to 52.2%) cut points. Individual variability (LoA) was large for MPA (min: BFEN₃₁₄₊, -60.6% to 57.5%; max: GENEA₂₅₀₊, -42.0% to 104.1%), VPA (min: BFEN₃₁₄₊, -238.9% to 54.6%; max: ENMO₁₉₂₊, -244.5% to 127.4%), and MVPA (min: ENMO₁₉₂₊, -53.7% to 55.0%; max: BFEN₃₁₄₊, -83.9% to 25.3%).

Conclusion: Wrist acceleration cut points misclassified a considerable proportion of non-MVPA and MVPA. Group-level estimates of MVPA were acceptable; however, error for individual-level prediction was larger.

Grant Number

ARC/DE140101588