Abstract
Citation
Dejoy DM, Wilson MG, Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ, Wang S, Baker KM, Bowen HM, Tully KJ. Development of the Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) to measure organizational physical and social support for worksite obesity prevention programs. J Occup Environ Med 2008 Feb;50(2):126-37.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the development, reliability, and validity of the Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) for assessing worksite physical and social environmental support for obesity prevention. METHODS: The EAT was developed using a multistep process. Inter-rater reliability was estimated via Kappa and other measures. Concurrent and predictive validity were estimated using site-level correlations and person-level multiple regression analyses comparing EAT scores and employee absenteeism and health care expenditures. RESULTS: Results show high inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity for many measures and predictive validity for absenteeism expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: The primary use of the EAT is as a physical and social environment assessment tool for worksite obesity prevention efforts. It can be used as a reliable and valid means to estimate relationships between environmental interventions and absenteeism and medical expenditures, provided those expenditures are for the same year that the EAT is administered.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318161b42a
At A Glance
Food Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Institution |
|---|---|
| 12 | Worksites |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Availability/Access | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Adequacy/Appeal | ✔ | ✘ |
| Food Quality | ✔ | ✘ |
| Labeling/Point of Purchase Info | ✔ | ✘ |
| Marketing/Advertising/Promotion | ✔ | ✘ |
| Policy/Practice | ✔ | ✘ |
| Food Group/Type of Food |
|---|
| Fruits and vegetables |
| Low-fat dairy |
| Sweetened beverages |
| Meat/fish/poultry/eggs |
| Low-fat foods other than dairy |
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Location |
|---|---|
| 12 | Worksites |
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| 72 | Building |
| 72 | Equipment |
| 12 | Trail/path/corridor |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | ✔ | ✘ |
| Marketing/Advertising/Promotion | ✔ | ✘ |
| Cycling Infrastructure | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Adequacy/Appeal or Quality | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Access/Availablity/Proximity | ✔ | ✘ |
| Pedestrian Infrastructure | ✔ | ✘ |
| Sports courts, physical activity classes | ✔ | ✘ |
| Social Environment | ✔ | ✘ |
Domain(s)
Food Environment
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Questionnaire
Measure Availability
Measure included in article
Number of Items
105 Reported
Study location
Not Reported
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) for the Worksite developers adapted several concepts found in the Checklist of Health Promotion Environments at Worksites (CHEW) and Heart Check instruments, as well as best practices reported in the literature related to environmental and social-ecological worksite interventions. A series of prototype instruments were developed and reviewed by specialists in worksite health promotion, nutrition and dietetics, exercise science, communications, occupational safety and health, applied psychology, and statistics and research methods. The tool was further refined with pilot testing.
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
Not applicable
Sex
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity
Not reported
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
Not reported
Sample Size
12
Study Design
Design Type
Validation/Reliability
Health Outcomes Assessed
None
Obesity Measures
Not applicable
BMI Measured or Self-reported
Not applicable
Covariates
Not reported
Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity
Not applicable
Data Reported on SES
Not applicable
SES-related Variables
Not applicable
How To Use
Administration
Who Administered
Researcher-administered
How Administered
In-person
Time Required
24 hours
Training Required
Yes, time not reported
Instructions on Use
Instructions on instrument use included in article
Data Analysis
Data Collection/Analysis Costs
Not reported
Data Collection/Protocol
The Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) for the Worksite was used to collect baseline data related to physical and social support for obesity prevention at each site. Site staff provided self-report responses to the items in Section I of the EAT prior to the site visits, and responses to Section I items were reviewed for completeness by the observers during the site visit. Two researchers visited the sites to complete Section II of the EAT survey. They completed Section II independently before comparing their results to achieve consensus on their responses.
Instructions on Data Analysis
Instructions on analysis included in article
Validity (3)
| Type of validity | Construct/subscale assessed | Criterion measure used | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concurrent | Environmental Assessment Tool, Physical Activities Score | Medical expenditures | Correlation coefficients | All NS |
| Concurrent | Environmental Assessment Tool, Nutrition and Weight Management score | Medical expenditures | Correlation coefficients | r = 0.62288, p = 0.0305 to 0.00623, p = 0.9847 |
| Concurrent | Environmental Assessment Tool, Organizational Support Score | Medical expenditures | Correlation coefficients | r = 0.60109, p = 0.0387 to 0.22097, p = 0.4901 |
Reliability (2)
| Type of reliability | Construct/subscale assessed | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inter-rater | Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) items | Percentage agreement scores (%) | % = 83.5 to 97.0 |
| Inter-rater | Environmental Assessment Tool (EAT) 66 items | Kappa statistics (k) | k = 0.412, p = 0.107 to 1.000, p = 0.000 |