Abstract
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Physical activity studies often utilize wearable devices to measure participants' habitual activity levels by averaging values across several valid observation days. These studies face competing demands-available resources and the burden to study participants must be balanced with the goal to obtain reliable measurements of a person's longer-term average. Information about the number of valid observation days required to reliably measure targeted metrics of habitual activity is required to inform study design. METHODS: To date, the number of days required to achieve a desired level of aggregate long-term reliability (typically 0.80) has often been estimated by applying the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula to short-term test-retest reliability data from studies with single, relatively brief observation windows. Our work, in contrast, utilizes a resampling-based approach to quantify the long-term test-retest reliability of aggregate measures of activity in a cohort of 79 participants who were asked to wear a FitBit Flex every day for approximately one year. RESULTS: The conventional approach can produce reliability estimates that substantially overestimate the actual test-retest reliability. Six or more valid days of observation for each participant appear necessary to obtain 0.80 reliability for the average amount of time spent in light physical activity; 8 and 10 valid days are needed for sedentary time and moderate/vigorous activity respectively. CONCLUSION: Protocols that result in 7-10 valid observation days for each participant may be needed to obtain reliable measurements of key physical activity metrics.