Abstract
Background Accelerometers are increasingly used to measure physical activity and sedentary time in toddlers. Data cleaning or wear time validation can impact outcomes of interest, particularly in young children who spend less time awake. However, no study has systematically compared wear time validation strategies in toddlers. As such, the objective of this study is to compare different fully-automated methods of distinguishing wear and non-wear time (counts and raw data algorithms) to the semi-automated (counts with logbooks) criterion method in toddlers.
Methods We recruited 109 toddlers (age 12-35 mos) as part of the iPLAY study to wear an ActiGraph w-GT3X-BT accelerometer on the right hip for ∼7 consecutive days (removed for sleep and water activities). Parents completed a logbook to indicate monitor removal and nap times. We tested 15 nonwear detection methods grouped into 4 main categories: semi-automated logbook, consecutive 0 counts, modified consecutive 0 counts (Troiano and Choi), and raw data methods (van Hees and Ahmadi). Using logbooks as the criterion standard (all wear and wake-time only wear), we calculated the accuracy and F1 scores and compared overall wear time with a two one-sided test of equivalence.
Results Participant daily wear time ranged from 556 to 684 minutes/day depending on method. Accuracy and F1 score ranged from 86 to 95%. Five methods were considered equivalent to the AllWear nonwear criterion (true wear time including sleep-time wear), with only one equivalent to the AwakeWear criterion. Mean absolute differences were lower for the AllWear criterion but ranged 49 to 192 minutes/day
Conclusions The 5min0count, 10min_0count, 30min_0count, Troiano60s, and Ahmadi methods provide high accuracy and equivalency when compared to semi-automated cleaning using logbooks. This paper provides insights and quantitative results that can help researchers decide which method may be most appropriate given their population of interest, sample size, and study protocol.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study received ethics clearance from the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board (HiREB #3674).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
