Do Incentives Promote Action Planning in a Web-based Walking Intervention?

Objective In this study, we examine the effect of providing an incentive for engagement in self-regulatory behaviors (ie, action planning), in inactive, office-based university employees participating in an 11-week, Web-based walking intervention. Methods Participants were randomly assigned to either control (intervention only) or incentive (intervention plus incentive; CAD $5.00 e-gift card delivered weekly for completing action plans over 4 weeks) conditions. Cohen's d was used to estimate the effect of the incentive on action planning and a RM-ANOVA examined differences in average steps/day, between the 2 conditions, before, during, and after the 4-week incentive period. Results Sixty-nine participants were included in the analysis (incentive: N = 34; control: N = 35; 88% female; Mage = 40.46±10.6 years). A large effect size (d = 1.01) in action plan completion was observed, favoring the incentive condition, with the effect of condition remaining high after incentives were withdrawn (d = 1.0). Greater steps/day favored the incentive condition during the post-incentive period (small effect size; d = 0.28). Conclusions Incentives were effective in encouraging engagement in a self-regulatory strategy (action planning). Future research should examine the optimal incentive structure and timing for engagement.

Validity of smartphone pedometer applications.

BACKGROUND: Given the widespread use of smartphone pedometer applications and the relatively limited number of published validity tests, this study examined the validity of three popular commercial smartphone pedometer applications (i.e., Accupedo, Moves, and Runtastic Pedometer). PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of males and females were recruited for laboratory tests [n = 11; mean: aged 24.18 years (±3.06)] and a free-living test [n = 18; mean: aged 28.78 years (±9.52)]. METHODS: Five conditions were assessed: (a) 20-step test, (b) 40-step stair climbing, (c) treadmill walking and running at different speeds, (d) driving, and (e) 3-day free-living. The Yamax SW-200 pedometer and observed step counts were used as criterion measures. RESULTS: Analyses identified an unacceptable error percentage in all of the applications compared to the pedometer. CONCLUSIONS: Given the inaccuracy of these applications, caution is required in their promotion to the public for self-monitoring physical activity and in their use as tools for assessing physical activity in research trials.