Validity of accelerometry for measurement of activity in people with brain injury

Purpose: To evaluate the validity of a uniaxial accelerometer (MTI Actigraph) for measuring physical activity in people with acquired brain injury (ABI) using portable indirect calorimetry (Cosmed K4b(2)) as a criterion measure. Methods: Fourteen people with ABI and related gait pattern impairment (age 32 +/- 8 yr) wore an MTI Actigraph that measured activity (counts(.)min-(1)) and a Cosmed K4b(2) that measured oxygen consumption (mL(.)kg(-1.)min(-1)) during four activities: quiet sitting (QS) and comfortable paced (CP), brisk paced (BP), and fast paced (FP) walking. MET levels were predicted from Actigraph counts using a published equation and compared with Cosmed measures. Predicted METs for each of the 56 activity bouts (14 participants X 4 bouts) were classified (light, moderate, vigorous, or very vigorous intensity) and compared with Cosmed-based classifications. Results: Repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that walking condition intensities were significantly different (P < 0.05) and the Actigraph detected the differences. Overall correlation between measured and predicted METs was positive, moderate, and significant (r = 0.74). Mean predicted METs were not significantly different from measured for CP and BP, but for FP walking, predicted METs were significantly less than measured (P < 0.05). The Actigraph correctly classified intensity for 76.8% of all activity bouts and 91.5% of light- and moderate-intensity bouts. Conclusions: Actigraph counts provide a valid index of activity across the intensities investigated in this study. For light to moderate activity, Actigraph-based estimates of METs are acceptable for group-level analysis and are a valid means of classifying activity intensity. The Actigraph significantly underestimated higher intensity activity, although, in practice, this limitation will have minimal impact on activity measurement of most community-dwelling people with ABI.

Reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment for use by family doctors

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment tool suitable for doctors to use to identify inactive patients in the primary care setting. Methods: Volunteer family doctors (n = 8) screened consenting patients (n = 75) for physical activity participation using a brief physical activity assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was assessed within one week (n = 71). Validity was assessed against an objective physical activity monitor (computer science and applications accelerometer; n = 42). Results: The brief physical activity assessment tool produced repeatable estimates of sufficient total physical activity, correctly classifying over 76% of cases (kappa 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72). The validity coefficient was reasonable (kappa 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69), with good percentage agreement (71%). Conclusions: The brief physical activity assessment tool is a reliable instrument, with validity similar to that of more detailed self report measures of physical activity. It is a tool that can be used efficiently in routine primary healthcare services to identify insufficiently active patients who may need physical activity advice.

Individual calibration for estimating free-living walking speed using the MTI monitor

Purpose: This study was conducted to devise a new individual calibration method to enhance MTI accelerometer estimation of free-living level walking speed. Method: Five female and five male middle-aged adults walked 400 m at 3.5, 4.5, and 5.5 km(.)h(-1), and 800 in at 6.5 km(.)h(-1) on an outdoor track, following a continuous protocol. Lap speed was controlled by a global positioning system (GPS) monitor. MTI counts-to-speed calibration equations were derived for each trial, for each subject for four such trials with each of four MTI, for each subject for the average MTI. and for the pooled data. Standard errors of the estimate (SEE) with and without individual calibration were compared. To assess accuracy of prediction of free-living walking speed, subjects also completed a self-paced, brisk 3-km walk wearing one of the four MTI, and differences between actual and predicted walking speed with and without individual calibration were examined. Results: Correlations between MTI counts and walking speed were 0.90 without individual calibration, 0.98 with individual calibration for the average MTI. and 0.99 with individual calibration for a specific MTI. The SEE (mean +/- SD) was 0.58 +/- 0.30 km(.)h(-1) without individual calibration, 0.19 +/- 0.09 km h(-1) with individual calibration for the average MTI monitor, and 0.16 +/- 0.08 km(.)h(-1) with individual calibration for a specific MTI monitor. The difference between actual and predicted walking speed on the brisk 3-km walk was 0.06 +/- 0.25 km(.)h(-1) using individual calibration and 0.28 +/- 0.63 km(.)h(-1) without individual calibration (for specific accelerometers). Conclusion: MTI accuracy in predicting walking speed without individual calibration might be sufficient for population-based studies but not for intervention trials. This individual calibration method will substantially increase precision of walking speed predicted from MTI counts.

The effect of upper extremity support on upper extremity posture and muscle activity during keyboard use

Forearm support during keyboard use has been reported to reduce neck and shoulder muscle activity and discomfort. However, the effect of forearm support on wrist posture has not been examined. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of 3 different postures during keyboard use: forearm support, wrist support and floating. The floating posture (no support) was used as the reference condition. A wrist rest was present in all test conditions. Thirteen participants completed 20 min wordprocessing tasks in each of the test conditions. Electromyography was used to monitor neck, shoulder and forearm muscle activity. Bilateral and overhead video cameras recorded left and right wrist extension, shoulder and elbow flexion and radial and ulnar deviation. The forearm support condition resulted in significantly less ulnar deviation (