Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The aim of this study was to measure the inter-instrument reliability of the ActiGraph and RT3 accelerometers in free-living conditions. 15 healthy adults wore eight ActiGraph accelerometers and five RT3 accelerometers fastened to their back with an elastic belt and adjustable buckle in free-living conditions. For both accelerometers, the inter-instrument coefficient of variation (CV) decreased with increasing physical activity intensity. The inter-instrument CV of the ActiGraph (3% to 10.5%) was significantly lower than that of the RT3 (12.6% to 35.5%; p < 0.05). This finding demonstrates that the ActiGraph has higher inter-instrument reliability than the RT3. For both accelerometers, the inter-instrument reliability was higher for moderate and vigorous physical activity, the two intensities recommended for public health purposes. Studies using these devices can be compared with a low risk of misclassification of participants who meet the recommendation to perform moderate to vigorous physical activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vanhelst et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: