Test–retest reliability of a portable monitor to assess energy expenditure

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Brazeau ◽  
Antony D. Karelis ◽  
Diane Mignault ◽  
Marie-Josée Lacroix ◽  
Denis Prud’homme ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Energy Expenditure ◽  
Resting Metabolic Rate ◽  
Peak Oxygen Uptake ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Sedentary Activity ◽  
Direct Supervision ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Portable Monitor ◽  
Intraclass Correlations ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

The ability of the SenseWear Armband (SWA) to estimate energy expenditure (EE) in adults is established. However, except for resting metabolic rate, the test–retest reliability of the SWA for the estimation of EE in adults is unknown. To explore reliability, 34 healthy adults (50% women; age, 26.7 ± 6.1 years; body mass index, 23.6 ± 3.3 kg·m–2) completed a 2-day study protocol. During 13 h of direct supervision, subjects completed, each day, 60 min of lying awake rest, 30 min of structured sedentary activity, 45 min of walking circuit, and 45 min of ergocycling at 50% of their peak oxygen uptake. For the remaining 10 h, subjects remained seated. The SWA showed significant intraclass correlations between the 2 days of testing for the overall 13 h of direct supervision (r = 0.97; p < 0.001), the lying awake rest (r = 0.98; p < 0.001), the structured sedentary activity (r = 0.62; p < 0.05), the walking circuit (r = 0.95; p < 0.001), and the standardized physical activity (r = 0.85; p < 0.001). The results of this study indicate that the SWA is a reliable tool to estimate EE during multiple activities. These data provide additional evidence of the usefulness of the SWA in monitoring EE in healthy adults.

Test–Retest Reliability and the Effects of Walking Speed on Stride Time Variability During Continuous, Overground Walking in Healthy Young Adults

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Nicholas S. Ryan ◽  
Paul A. Bruno ◽  
John M. Barden
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Walking Speed ◽  
Time Variability ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Stride Time ◽  
Real Difference ◽  
Overground Walking ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Intraclass Correlations ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Studies have investigated the reliability and effect of walking speed on stride time variability during walking trials performed on a treadmill. The objective of this study was to investigate the reliability of stride time variability and the effect of walking speed on stride time variability, during continuous, overground walking in healthy young adults. Participants completed: (1) 2 walking trials at their preferred walking speed on 1 day and another trial 2 to 4 days later and (2) 1 trial at their preferred walking speed, 1 trial approximately 20% to 25% faster than their preferred walking speed, and 1 trial approximately 20% to 25% slower than their preferred walking speed on a separate day. Data from a waist-mounted accelerometer were used to determine the consecutive stride times for each trial. The reliability of stride time variability outcomes was generally poor (intraclass correlations: .167–.487). Although some significant differences in stride time variability were found between the preferred walking speed, fast, and slow trials, individual between-trial differences were generally below the estimated minimum difference considered to be a real difference. The development of a protocol to improve the reliability of stride time variability outcomes during continuous, overground walking would be beneficial to improve their application in research and clinical settings.

scholarly journals Test-Retest Reliability of the StepWatch Activity Monitor Outputs in Healthy Adults

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 671-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzie Mudge ◽  
Denise Taylor ◽  
Oliver Chang ◽  
Rosita Wong
Keyword(s):  
Activity Index ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
Activity Monitor ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Peak Activity ◽  
Good Test ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Step Rate ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Background:Activity Monitors give an objective measure of usual walking performance. This study aimed to examine the test-retest reliability of the StepWatch Activity Monitor outputs (mean steps/day; peak activity index; sustained activity indices of 1, 5, 20, 30, 60 minutes; steps at high, medium, and low stepping rates).Methods:Thirty healthy adults age 18 to 49 years wore the StepWatch for 2 3-day periods at least 1 week apart.Results:The intraclass correlation coefficients of the StepWatch outputs ranged from 0.44 to 0.91 over 3 days. The coefficient of variation ranged from 3.0% to 51.3% over the monitoring periods, with higher variation shown for shorter monitoring periods. The most reliable 5 outputs had 95% limits of agreement between 3-day periods that were less than 40%. These were mean steps/day (±39.1%), highest step rate in 1 (±17.3%) and 5 (±37.4%) minutes, peak activity index (±25.6%), and percentage of inactive time (±9.52%).Conclusions:Mean steps/day, highest step rate in 1 and 5 minutes, peak activity index, and percentage of inactive time have good test-retest reliability over a 3-day monitoring period, with lower reliability shown by the other StepWatch outputs. Monitoring over 1 or 2 days is less reliable.

Test-Retest Reliability and Practice Effects of the Stability Evaluation Test

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richelle M. Williams ◽  
Matthew A. Corvo ◽  
Kenneth C. Lam ◽  
Travis A. Williams ◽  
Lesley K. Gilmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postural Control ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Composite Score ◽  
Practice Effects ◽  
Stability Evaluation ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Evaluation Test ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Context: Postural control plays an essential role in concussion evaluation. The Stability Evaluation Test (SET) aims to objectively analyze postural control by measuring sway velocity on the NeuroCom VSR portable force platform (Natus, San Carlos, CA). Objective: To assess the test-retest reliability and practice effects of the SET protocol. Design: Cohort. Setting: Research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: 50 healthy adults (20 men, 30 women, age 25.30 ± 3.60 y, height 166.60± 12.80 cm, mass 68.80 ± 13.90 kg). Interventions: All participants completed 4 trials of the SET. Each trial consisted of six 20-s balance tests with eyes closed, under the following conditions: double-leg firm (DFi), single-leg firm (SFi), tandem firm (TFi), double-leg foam (DFo), single-leg foam (SFo), and tandem foam (TFo). Each trial was separated by a 5-min seated rest period. Main Outcome Measures: The dependent variable was sway velocity (deg/s), with lower values indicating better balance. Sway velocity was recorded for each of the 6 conditions as well as a composite score for each trial. Test-retest reliability was analyzed across 4 trials with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Practice effects analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance, followed by Tukey post hoc comparisons for any significant main effects (P < .05). Results: Sway-velocity reliability values were good to excellent: DFi (ICC = .88; 95%CI: .81, .92), SFi (ICC = .75; 95%CI: .61, .85), TFi (ICC = .84; 95%CI: .75, .90), DFo (ICC = .83; 95%CI: .74, .90), SFo (ICC = .82; 95%CI: .72, .89), TFo (ICC = .81; 95%CI: .69, .88), and composite score (ICC = .93; 95%CI: .88, .95). Significant practice effects (P < .05) were noted on the SFi, DFo, SFo, TFo conditions and composite scores. Conclusions: Our results suggest the SET has good to excellent reliability for the assessment of postural control in healthy adults. Due to the practice effects noted, a familiarization session is recommended (ie, all 6 conditions) before data are recorded. Future studies should evaluate injured patients to determine meaningful change scores during various injuries.

scholarly journals The test-retest reliability of four functional mobility tests in apparently healthy adults

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Northgraves ◽  
Stephen C. Hayes ◽  
Philip Marshall ◽  
Leigh A. Madden ◽  
Rebecca V. Vince
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Functional Mobility ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
Apparently Healthy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document