Background Commercially available activity monitors, such as the Fitbit, may encourage physical activity. However, the accuracy of the Fitbit in older adults remains unknown. This study aimed to determine (1) the criterion validity of Fitbit step counts compared to visual count and ActiGraph accelerometer step counts and (2) the accuracy of ActiGraph step counts compared to visual count in community-dwelling older people.

Methods Thirty-two community-dwelling adults aged over 60 wore Fitbit and ActiGraph devices simultaneously during a 2 min walk test (2MWT) and then during waking hours over a 7-day period. A physiotherapist counted the steps taken during the 2MWT.

Results There was excellent agreement between Fitbit and visually counted steps (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC_2,1)=0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94) from the 2MWT, and good agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph (ICC_2,1=0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.82), and between ActiGraph and visually counted steps (ICC_2,1=0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79). There was excellent agreement between the Fitbit and ActiGraph in average steps/day over 7 days (ICC_2,1=0.94, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Percentage agreement was closest for Fitbit steps compared to visual count (mean 0%, SD 4%) and least for Fitbit average steps/day compared to the ActiGraph (mean 13%, SD 25%).

Conclusions The Fitbit accurately tracked steps during the 2MWT, but the ActiGraph appeared to underestimate steps. There was strong agreement between Fitbit and ActiGraph counted steps. The Fitbit tracker is sufficiently accurate to be used among community-dwelling older adults to monitor and give feedback on step counts.