Article Text

PDF
Evaluation of the MyWellness Key accelerometer
  1. S D Herrmann,
  2. T L Hart,
  3. C D Lee,
  4. B E Ainsworth
  1. Healthy Lifestyles Research Center, Program in Exercise and Wellness, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, USA
  1. Correspondence to Stephen Herrmann, Healthy Lifestyles Research Center, Program in Exercise and Wellness, College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, 7350 E. Unity Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA; stephen.herrmann{at}asu.edu

Abstract

Objective To examine the concurrent validity of the Technogym MyWellness Key accelerometer against objective and subjective physical activity (PA) measures.

Design Randomised, cross-sectional design with two phases. The laboratory phase compared the MyWellness Key with the ActiGraph GT1M and the Yamax SW200 Digiwalker pedometer during graded treadmill walking, increasing speed each minute. The free-living phase compared the MyWellness Key with the ActiGraph, Digiwalker, Bouchard Activity cord (BAR) and Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) for seven continuous days. Data were analysed using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients for all comparisons.

Setting Laboratory and free-living phases.

Participants Sixteen participants randomly stratified from 41 eligible respondents by sex (n=8 men; n=8 women) and PA levels (n=4 low, n=8 middle and n=4 high active).

Results There was a strong association between the MyWellness Key and the ActiGraph accelerometer during controlled graded treadmill walking (r=0.91, p<0.01) and in free-living settings (r=0.73–0.76 for light to vigorous PA, respectively, p<0.01). No associations were observed between the MyWellness Key and the BAR and GPAQ (p>0.05).

Conclusions The MyWellness Key has a high concurrent validity with the ActiGraph accelerometer to detect PA in both controlled laboratory and free-living settings.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This study was sponsored by Technogym, Inc. The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, collection of data, analyses and interpretation of the data, writing of the article and the decision to submit the article for publication. All authors are independent researchers and do not receive funding from the study sponsor.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Arizona State University.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.