Page 47 - Sember, Vedrana, and Shawnda A. Morrison. 2018. The Mind-Body Connection. Koper: University of Primorska Press.
P. 47
Quantifying Physical Activity
physical activity. Objective measures remove disadvantages associ-
ated with subjective measures, are more reliable, involve quantitat-
ive analysis of numerical data.
Objective methods can be expensive and are suitable for indi-
viduals or smaller groups. With direct (systematic) observation we
directly monitor and record children’s physical activity at the same
time. We can use video and special software for automatic detec-
tion of movement patterns. In the past this method was widely
spread, however today it is somewhat neglected, although it has
many advantages. Observation procedures are flexible, accurate,
detailed and offer many descriptions of observed events (environ-
ment, equipment, conditions, behavioral . . .) (Trost, 2007). It was an
important tool in assessment of physical activity, because it uses an
objective method and provides rich data, especially in researches
studying children, cognitive-behavior and effects of physical and
social environments on physical activity (McKenzie, 2001).
Measuring of physical activity is nowadays increasingly direc-
ted towards measuring devices, which provide physiologically and
mechanically more accurate and reliable data, compared to oth-
er techniques (Westerterp, 2009). Measuring devices referred to as
‘activity trackers’ or ‘fitness trackers’ are nowadays very popular for
personal PA monitoring. Their popularity has risen as they became
affordable, unobtrusive and useful in their application (Evenson,
Goto, & Furberg, 2015). Activity trackers can provide feedback and
offer recommendations for individual’s physical activity, but they
are not reliable for scientific purpose to the same extent as acceler-
ometers, pedometers and multiple-sensor devices. Unfortunately,
there are no gold standards for measuring physical activity with
wearable monitors (Freedson, Bowles, Troiano, & Haskell, 2012).
The choice of measuring device is left to the researcher and depends
on several factors: interest, target population, cost and precision of
measurement (Ainsworh, Cahalin, Buman, & Ross, 2015).
Accelerometers are small wearable motion sensors which detect
body accelerations in gravitational units (Freedson et al., 2012). The
core of accelerometer is a sensor from piezoelectric material, which
45
physical activity. Objective measures remove disadvantages associ-
ated with subjective measures, are more reliable, involve quantitat-
ive analysis of numerical data.
Objective methods can be expensive and are suitable for indi-
viduals or smaller groups. With direct (systematic) observation we
directly monitor and record children’s physical activity at the same
time. We can use video and special software for automatic detec-
tion of movement patterns. In the past this method was widely
spread, however today it is somewhat neglected, although it has
many advantages. Observation procedures are flexible, accurate,
detailed and offer many descriptions of observed events (environ-
ment, equipment, conditions, behavioral . . .) (Trost, 2007). It was an
important tool in assessment of physical activity, because it uses an
objective method and provides rich data, especially in researches
studying children, cognitive-behavior and effects of physical and
social environments on physical activity (McKenzie, 2001).
Measuring of physical activity is nowadays increasingly direc-
ted towards measuring devices, which provide physiologically and
mechanically more accurate and reliable data, compared to oth-
er techniques (Westerterp, 2009). Measuring devices referred to as
‘activity trackers’ or ‘fitness trackers’ are nowadays very popular for
personal PA monitoring. Their popularity has risen as they became
affordable, unobtrusive and useful in their application (Evenson,
Goto, & Furberg, 2015). Activity trackers can provide feedback and
offer recommendations for individual’s physical activity, but they
are not reliable for scientific purpose to the same extent as acceler-
ometers, pedometers and multiple-sensor devices. Unfortunately,
there are no gold standards for measuring physical activity with
wearable monitors (Freedson, Bowles, Troiano, & Haskell, 2012).
The choice of measuring device is left to the researcher and depends
on several factors: interest, target population, cost and precision of
measurement (Ainsworh, Cahalin, Buman, & Ross, 2015).
Accelerometers are small wearable motion sensors which detect
body accelerations in gravitational units (Freedson et al., 2012). The
core of accelerometer is a sensor from piezoelectric material, which
45
