Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jan 5.
Published in final edited form as: Cogent Med. 2017 Mar 31;4:1313505. doi: 10.1080/2331205X.2017.1313505

Table 2.

Agreement between non-wear time criteria for estimates of sedentary behaviour and wear time (min/day)

Comparisona Sedentary behaviour Wear time
Mean differences (95% CI) 95% Limits of agreement Mean differences (95% CI) 95% Limits of agreement
Diary vs. Troiano 37.5 (25.7, 49.3) −84.6, 159.6 30.0 (18.2, 41.8) −92.4, 152.5
Diary vs. Choi 5.8 (−4.4, 16.0) −100.2, 111.8 −1.3 (−12.0, 9.3) −111.7, 109.0
Diary vs. Algorithm 4 −4.4 (−14.6, 5.8) −110.5, 101.8 −10.8 (−21.4, −0.2) −120.9, 99.2
Diary vs. Algorithm 5 5.5 (−4.9, 15.9) −103.0, 114.0 −1.5 (−12.2, 9.3) −113.1, 110.1
Diary vs. Algorithm 6 8.1 (−2.3, 18.5) −100.2, 116.4 1.0 (−9.7, 11.7) −110.0, 112.0
a

Diary: We used participants’ self-report diaries to identify non-wear time (>10 min); Troiano: We considered ≥60 min of continuous zeroes, while allowing for up to 2 min of counts ≤100 counts as non-wear time (Troiano et al., 2008); Choi: We considered ≥90 min of consecutive zeroes, while allowing for up to 2 min of non-zero counts if the interruption was accompanied by 30 consecutive minutes of 0 counts either upstream or downstream (Choi, et al., 2011); Algorithm 4: We considered ≥90 min of continuous zeroes, without any allowances for interruptions, as non-wear time; Algorithm 5: We considered ≥90 min of continuous zeroes, while allowing for up to 2 min of counts ≥50 counts as non-wear time; Algorithm 6: We considered ≥90 min of continuous zeroes, while allowing for up to 2 min of counts ≥100 counts as non-wear time.