| Measure | Utility | Study | , age (years), disability | Criterion validity | Construct validity | Reliability |
| | Cost not available |
Kuo et al. [23] | , 4–16, CP | Mean difference ± 2SD: ()–() m; ()–() steps; rate of activity detection: 19–97% |
n/a |
n/a | | Calibration and analysis software | , 4–16, TDC | Mean difference ± 2SD ()–() m; ()–() steps; rate of activity detection for stair ascent and descent 84–100% | Minimod | Rich data collection | | | (range: 94.1–101.8%) | | | | |
Brandes et al. [22, 27] | , 5–16, CP | (range not reported) | | | | Feasible HPA measure | | (range: 98.5–101.5%) | n/a | n/a | | | , 3–16, TDC | (range: 93–106.7%) | | | | | | (range: 94.5–106.6%) | | |
|
AMP | Cost not available No calibration Analysis software |
Kuo et al. [23] | , 4–16, CP | Mean difference ± 2SD ()–() m; ()–(−3.5–13.4) steps; rate of activity detection 85–95% |
n/a |
n/a | Only total steps and meters walked Feasible HPA measure | , 4–16, TDC | Mean difference ± 2SD ()–() m; ()–() steps; rate of activity detection: 92–100% |
| | Expensive (unit: $500, software: $1500) |
McDonald et al. [25] | , 5–13, DMD | Authors state “no difference between observed and measured”; no statistical measure reported | ,
| | | | , 5–13, TDC | , | n/a | | Calibration and analysis software | | | | | | StepWatch | |
Stevens et al. [24] | , 4–18, CP | Authors state “readjusted until all valid step activity recorded”; no statistical measure reported | n/a | n/a | | Rich data collection | , 4–18,TDC | | | | |
Bjornson et al. [28] | , 2–5, TDC | (2-3yr); (4-5yr) | n/a | n/a | | Feasible HPA measure |
Song et al. [29] | , 5–11, TDC | Walking: ; Running: ; (); measurement error | n/a | n/a |
| IDEEA |
Cost not available Poor battery life (60 hrs) Poor utility in HPA research |
Aviram et al. [26] | , 4–10, CP | (); difference means (-test): | | Test-retest |
n/a | ; | , 5–8, TDC | (); difference means (-test): | Difference mean: | | -test: |
|
|