Background: Consumer activity monitors and smartphones have gained relevance for the assessment and promotion of physical activity. The aim of this study was to determine the concurrent validity of various consumer activity monitor models and smartphone models for measuring steps. Methods: Participants completed three activity protocols: (1) overground walking with three different speeds (comfortable, slow, fast), (2) activities of daily living (ADLs) focusing on arm movements, and (3) intermittent walking. Participants wore 11 activity monitors (wrist: 8; hip: 2; ankle: 1) and four smartphones (hip: 3; calf: 1). Observed steps served as the criterion measure. The mean average percentage error (MAPE) was calculated for each device and protocol. Results: Eighteen healthy adults participated in the study (age: 28.8 ± 4.9 years). MAPEs ranged from 0.3–38.2% during overground walking, 48.2–861.2% during ADLs, and 11.2–47.3% during intermittent walking. Wrist-worn activity monitors tended to misclassify arm movements as steps. Smartphone data collected at the hip, analyzed with a separate algorithm, performed either equally or even superiorly to the research-grade ActiGraph. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential of smartphones for physical activity measurement. Measurement inaccuracies during intermittent walking and arm movements should be considered when interpreting study results and choosing activity monitors for evaluation purposes.

The two-minute walk test (2MWT) is a frequently used walking capacity test in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). However, less is known about its relevance with regards to walking capacity during free-living walking performance. Therefore, the ecological validity of the 2MWT was tested by 1. computing free-living minutes with the same intensity (cadence) as during the 2MWT and 2. investigating the relationship between 2MWT cadence and minutes with the same cadence during free-living walking. 20 pwMS aged 44.2 ± 12.2 (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score of 3.1 ± 1.4) performed a 2MWT and wore an accelerometer for seven days. The number of pwMS reaching 100%, 90%, 80% or 70% of 2MWT cadence for at least one minute a day and minutes/day with at least 100%, 90%, 80% and 70% of 2MWT cadence during free-living walking was calculated. Six participants reached 100% of the 2MWT cadence for at least one minute/day during free-living walking. A total of 80% 2MWT cadence was the first intensity category that was reached by all participants during free-living walking. No significant correlation was found between cadence in the 2MWT and minutes in which this cadence was reached during free-living walking. Ecological validity with regard to walking intensity could not be confirmed in our study sample.