Are Wrist-Worn Activity Trackers and Mobile Applications Valid for Assessing Physical Activity in High School Students? Wearfit Study

Abstract

The purpose was to examine the validity of three wrist-worn commercial activity trackers (Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2, Apple Watch Series 5, and Xiaomi Mi Band 5) and six mobile apps (Pedometer and Pacer for android and iPhone mobiles, Google Fit for android, and Apple Health for iPhone mobiles) for estimating high school students’ steps and physical activity (PA) under freeliving conditions. A sample of 56 (27 females; mean age = 14.7 years) and 51 (25 females; mean age = 14.0 years) high school students participated in Study 1 and 2, respectively. Study 1: Students performed a 200-meter course in four different conditions while wearing the wearables. Step counting through a video record was used as the golden standard. Study 2: Students wore the three wrist-worn commercial activity trackers during the waking time of one day, considering ActiGraph model wGT3X-BT accelerometers as a standard of reference. Afterward, the agreement between the PA scores measured by the commercial activity trackers and the video (study 1) or accelerometers (study 2) were calculated as follows: Equivalence test, Limits of Agreement (LOA); Mean Absolute Error (MAE); Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE); and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Results showed that all the wearables presented excellent validity for assessing steps in structured free-living conditions (study 1; MAPE < 5%), although their validity was between poor-excellent based on ICC (95% confidence interval) values (ICC = 0.56- 1.00). Regarding Study 2, the Xiaomi wristband and the Samsung Watch presented acceptable-excellent (MAPE = 9.4-11.4%; ICC = 0.91-0.97) validity for assessing steps under unstructured freeliving conditions (study 2). However, the Apple Watch presented questionable-excellent validity (MAPE = 18.0%; ICC = 0.69- 0.95). Regarding moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) and total PA, only the Apple Watch showed low-acceptable validity for MAPE value and questionable-excellent validity for the ICC values for MVPA assessment (MAPE = 22.6; ICC = 0.67-0.93). All wearables checked in this study have shown adequate validity results in order to assess steps in both structured and unstructured free-living conditions for both continuous and dichotomous variables. Moreover, for assessing MVPA, only the Apple Watch reported valid results for compliance or non-compliance with the daily PA recommendations. However, the results showed low validity for total PA and MVPA as continuous variables. In conclusion, depending on the user’s/researcher’s aim and context, one or another wearable activity tracker could be more adequate, mainly because of its valid measurements and its costs.