The Accuracy of Talking Pedometers when Used during Free-Living: A Comparison of Four Devices.

Higher levels of physical activity, determined through the daily accumulation of steps, have been associated with a lower risk of being overweight and obese (Hornbuckle, Bassett, & Thompson, 2005; Thompson, Rakow, & Perdue, 2004; Woolf et al., 2008; Wyatt, Peters, Reed, Barry, & Hill, 2005) and a healthier cardiovascular disease risk profile (Woolf et al., 2008). Pedometers have been shown to be a successful interventional tool to increase daily physical activity (Bravata et al., 2007), as well as to lower weight, body mass index (BMI), and blood pressure with long-term use (Bravata et al., 2007; Richardson et al., 2008). Modern pedometers are relatively small devices that can be worn unobtrusively on a belt or a waistband to count the total number of steps an individual accumulates throughout the day. Providing pedometers and setting progressive step-count goals have shown to be an effective method for increasing physical activity. Many commercially available pedometers have been shown to be valid in measuring independent physical activity (Tudor-Locke, Williams, Reis, & Pluto, 2002, 2004). Thus, pedometers can play an important role in both public health research and as a motivational tool for increasing physical activity in a variety of populations. A number of talking pedometers are available for purchase with a wide variety of functions and prices ranging from $10 to $50. A typical talking pedometer bas a Talk button, in which a voice recording reads the data on the device's screen. Although Beets, Floey, Tindall, and Lieberman (2007) investigated the accuracy of talking pedometers among children, no similar validity test bas been performed on the range of talking pedometers used by adults in independent situations. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of four commercially available talking pedometers in measuring accumulated daily steps of adult participants while they moved independently. METHODS Participants Ten young sighted adults (with an average age of 24.1 [+ or -] 4.6 years), 10 older sighted adults (with an average age of 73 [+ or -] 5.5 years), and 10 adults with visual impairments (with an average age of 38.7 [+ or -] 12.4 years) completed the testing protocol. Approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Towson University. The young adults were recruited from Towson University classes, and the older adults were recruited from the Towson University Wellness Center. None of the sighted participants reported a visual impairment that could not be corrected with standard correction (eyeglasses or contact lenses). The participants with visual impairments were recruited from a local rehabilitation center. They were all legally blind, described themselves as confident travelers or walkers, and used long canes. None of them used weight-bearing assistive walking devices. Talking pedometers Four commercially available talking pedometers were selected for validation: the Oregon Scientific PE829, Sportline 343, Brookstone Talking Pedometer, and Accusplit Alliance AL300. They all had a Talk button that, when pressed, would read out the information provided on the screen. This information could include accumulated steps, distance traveled, or calories expended. The Oregon Scientific pedometer did not have a speaker and required the use of headphones for listening to the talk function. The selected criterion pedometer was the Digi-Walker SW-200. This pedometer does not have a talk function, but has been used extensively in research as a criterion pedometer to provide an accurate measure of accumulated steps by which to compare the pedometers being tested when the use of a hand-tally count is not feasible (Crouter, Schneider, Karabulut, & Bassett, 2003; Swartz, Bassett, Moore, & Thompson, 2003). Procedures The sighted young and older adult participants were given four belts each with one of the four talking pedometers and a criterion pedometer attached. …