Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study
Abstract Background Step counting stands out as a highly practical and widely utilised method for assessing an individual's level of physical activity (PA). Although the progress of step counting has undergone a significant transformation in recent times, the need to validate PA applications (a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | BMC Digital Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-025-00159-3 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849388879147171840 |
|---|---|
| author | Uchechukwu Martha Chukwuemeka Arinze Damian Nnalue Sochima Johnmark Obiekwe Fatai Adesina Maruf Anthony Chinedu Anakor Monday Omoniyi Moses Chinedum Amaechi Uchenna Prosper Okonkwo Ifeoma Adaigwe Amaechi |
| author_facet | Uchechukwu Martha Chukwuemeka Arinze Damian Nnalue Sochima Johnmark Obiekwe Fatai Adesina Maruf Anthony Chinedu Anakor Monday Omoniyi Moses Chinedum Amaechi Uchenna Prosper Okonkwo Ifeoma Adaigwe Amaechi |
| author_sort | Uchechukwu Martha Chukwuemeka |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Step counting stands out as a highly practical and widely utilised method for assessing an individual's level of physical activity (PA). Although the progress of step counting has undergone a significant transformation in recent times, the need to validate PA applications (apps) is even more pressing to ensure their accuracy. This study aimed to compare the criterion validity of Pacer, Pedometer by ITO Technologies Inc., and Google Fit in measuring step counts in semi-structured laboratory-based conditions. Method This comparative experimental study involved 50 students who were fitted with Android phones running the three step counting applications (Pedometer, Pacer and Google Fit) simultaneously while they walked a 30-m walkway at a normal and fast pace during which a video of their walking was recorded with Techno Pouvoir 4 Pro running Android version 11. The steps in the recorded videos served as the criterion compared with the steps recorded by the apps and were counted only when the foot is lifted off the ground and placed in a new location. They were counted independently by two reviewers, who recounted where their level of agreement was more than 3 steps until their report was not more than 2 steps different. The Spearman’s correlation was used for a relationship, while Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Bland plot were for validity testing at an Alpha level of 0.05. Result While there was no significant difference in step counts among the three apps, a significant difference was found between the steps recorded by the apps and those counted by the video criterion during normal-paced walking but not for fast-paced walking (p > 0.05). The MAPEs for the three applications were moderate, with Google Fit showing 6.6% for normal pace walking and Pedometer and Pacer showing 9.2%. For fast-paced walking, the MAPE was lower at 5.4% across all three applications. Conclusion Our findings suggest that a pedometer, Pacer and Google Fit could be used as outcome measures in a general population for counting steps, but Google Fit might be a better step counter when normal pace walking is assessed. However, the study's relatively short duration may have overlooked variations in the applications'performance across different conditions over a longer period; hence, future studies should consider comparing the validity of these applications for a longer duration and among diverse populations. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-aac97d55ab604b8b98d59f4bf31ee64a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2731-684X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Digital Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-aac97d55ab604b8b98d59f4bf31ee64a2025-08-20T03:42:07ZengBMCBMC Digital Health2731-684X2025-07-013111110.1186/s44247-025-00159-3Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based studyUchechukwu Martha Chukwuemeka0Arinze Damian Nnalue1Sochima Johnmark Obiekwe2Fatai Adesina Maruf3Anthony Chinedu Anakor4Monday Omoniyi Moses5Chinedum Amaechi6Uchenna Prosper Okonkwo7Ifeoma Adaigwe Amaechi8Department of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Physiology, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Physiotherapy and Sports Science, Kuame Nkurumah University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Computer Sciences, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityDepartment of Medical Rehabilitation, Nnamdi Azikiwe UniversityAbstract Background Step counting stands out as a highly practical and widely utilised method for assessing an individual's level of physical activity (PA). Although the progress of step counting has undergone a significant transformation in recent times, the need to validate PA applications (apps) is even more pressing to ensure their accuracy. This study aimed to compare the criterion validity of Pacer, Pedometer by ITO Technologies Inc., and Google Fit in measuring step counts in semi-structured laboratory-based conditions. Method This comparative experimental study involved 50 students who were fitted with Android phones running the three step counting applications (Pedometer, Pacer and Google Fit) simultaneously while they walked a 30-m walkway at a normal and fast pace during which a video of their walking was recorded with Techno Pouvoir 4 Pro running Android version 11. The steps in the recorded videos served as the criterion compared with the steps recorded by the apps and were counted only when the foot is lifted off the ground and placed in a new location. They were counted independently by two reviewers, who recounted where their level of agreement was more than 3 steps until their report was not more than 2 steps different. The Spearman’s correlation was used for a relationship, while Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Bland plot were for validity testing at an Alpha level of 0.05. Result While there was no significant difference in step counts among the three apps, a significant difference was found between the steps recorded by the apps and those counted by the video criterion during normal-paced walking but not for fast-paced walking (p > 0.05). The MAPEs for the three applications were moderate, with Google Fit showing 6.6% for normal pace walking and Pedometer and Pacer showing 9.2%. For fast-paced walking, the MAPE was lower at 5.4% across all three applications. Conclusion Our findings suggest that a pedometer, Pacer and Google Fit could be used as outcome measures in a general population for counting steps, but Google Fit might be a better step counter when normal pace walking is assessed. However, the study's relatively short duration may have overlooked variations in the applications'performance across different conditions over a longer period; hence, future studies should consider comparing the validity of these applications for a longer duration and among diverse populations.https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-025-00159-3PacerPedometerGoogle FitPhysical activityStep countingValidation study |
| spellingShingle | Uchechukwu Martha Chukwuemeka Arinze Damian Nnalue Sochima Johnmark Obiekwe Fatai Adesina Maruf Anthony Chinedu Anakor Monday Omoniyi Moses Chinedum Amaechi Uchenna Prosper Okonkwo Ifeoma Adaigwe Amaechi Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study BMC Digital Health Pacer Pedometer Google Fit Physical activity Step counting Validation study |
| title | Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study |
| title_full | Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study |
| title_fullStr | Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study |
| title_short | Comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications; a semi-structured laboratory-based study |
| title_sort | comparative validity assessment of three android step counter applications a semi structured laboratory based study |
| topic | Pacer Pedometer Google Fit Physical activity Step counting Validation study |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s44247-025-00159-3 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT uchechukwumarthachukwuemeka comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT arinzedamiannnalue comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT sochimajohnmarkobiekwe comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT fataiadesinamaruf comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT anthonychineduanakor comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT mondayomoniyimoses comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT chinedumamaechi comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT uchennaprosperokonkwo comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy AT ifeomaadaigweamaechi comparativevalidityassessmentofthreeandroidstepcounterapplicationsasemistructuredlaboratorybasedstudy |