This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters to the Editor (12)

Published on in Vol 5, No 2 (2017): February

Critique of: “Physical Activity Assessment Between Consumer- and Research-Grade Accelerometers: A Comparative Study in Free-Living Conditions”

Critique of: “Physical Activity Assessment Between Consumer- and Research-Grade Accelerometers: A Comparative Study in Free-Living Conditions”

Critique of: “Physical Activity Assessment Between Consumer- and Research-Grade Accelerometers: A Comparative Study in Free-Living Conditions”

Authors of this article:

Jairo H Migueles1 Author Orcid Image ;   Cristina Cadenas-Sanchez1 Author Orcid Image ;   Francisco B. Ortega1, 2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by (3) Tweetations (6) Metrics

Journals

  1. Dominick G, Winfree K, Pohlig R, Papas M. Authors’ Reply to: Critique of “Physical Activity Assessment Between Consumer- and Research-Grade Accelerometers: A Comparative Study in Free-Living Conditions” – Does Location of the Device Matter?. JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2017;5(2):e13 View
  2. Mikkelsen M, Berg-Beckhoff G, Frederiksen P, Horgan G, O’Driscoll R, Palmeira A, Scott S, Stubbs J, Heitmann B, Larsen S, Bergman P. Estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour in a free-living environment: A comparative study between Fitbit Charge 2 and Actigraph GT3X. PLOS ONE 2020;15(6):e0234426 View
  3. Kwon S, Bai Y, Kim Y, Burns R, Brusseau T, Byun W. Convergent Validity of Garmin Vivofit Jr. 3 and Fitbit Ace 3 for Monitoring Daily Physical Activity of Children. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 2024:1 View