Table 1.
Description of performed calibration tasks.
Table 2.
Physical characteristics of the participants.
Figure 1.
Probability of correctly detecting locomotive and nonlocomotive activities in the development group (n = 48).
Figure 2.
Relationship of synthetic acceleration to measured METs in nonlocomotive and locomotive activities in the development group (n = 48).
Table 3.
Rate of correct discrimination of nonlocomotive from locomotive activities.
Table 4.
Absolute and percentage differences between measured and predicted METs from each equation model for nonlocomotive and locomotive activities in the cross-validation group (n = 20).
Table 5.
Effect of weight, age and sex on predictive ability by multiple regression analysis.
Table 6.
Comparison between predicted METs from each equation and measured METs (n = 68).
Figure 3.
Differences between predicted and measured METs from each equation by Bland and Altman plot analysis.
The solid line represents mean differences between measured and predicted values. The 2 dashed lines represent the upper and lower limits of agreement, calculated as mean difference ±2 SD. Upper figure (A) and lower figure (B) shows the standard equation’s plots and the multiple regression equation’s plots, respectively.