Validity of the activPAL and ActiGraph for measuring sitting time and steps in hospitalised orthopaedic patients with altered weight bearing

PurposeTo determine the criterion validity of the activPAL and ActiGraph for measuring steps and sitting/sedentary time, compared to observation, in people hospitalised following orthopaedic lower limb injury who were weight bearing (WB) (i.e., walking) or non-weight bearing (NWB) (i.e., hopping).Materials and methodsParticipants wore an activPAL and ActiGraph on the hip/thigh/unaffected (UA)/affected ankle (AA) while completing bouts of walking and sitting. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman methods, and ratio of agreement were used to compare device-measured to observed (videoed) step count, sitting/sedentary time.ResultsIn 42 participants, the ActiGraph demonstrated excellent concordance with the observed step count when worn on the ankle (LCC 0.91-0.92) compared to the hip (LCC 0.56) in participants that were WB. The ActiGraph AA achieved the highest concordance (LCC 0.71) with observed steps in participants NWB. The activPAL had poor concordance with observed steps, particularly at slow gait speeds, in participants that were WB (LCC 0.38-0.46), however was less influenced by gait speed and had good concordance in NWB participants (LCC 0.52-0.69). The activPAL (LCC 0.79-0.88) and ActiGraph UA (LCC 0.94) showed excellent concordance with observed sitting and sedentary time, respectively.ConclusionsThe ActiGraph worn at the ankle provided the most valid measure of steps in people who are WB and NWB following orthopaedic injury, while the activPAL was best for measuring sitting time.