Abstract
Citation
Kaczynski AT, Stanis SA, Besenyi GM. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med 2012 Mar;42(3):242-9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parks are valuable community resources, and auditing park environments is important for understanding their influence on physical activity and health. However, few tools exist that engage citizens in this process. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a user-friendly tool that would enable diverse stakeholders to quickly and reliably audit community parks for their potential to promote physical activity. A secondary aim was to examine community stakeholders' reactions to the process of developing and using the new tool. METHODS: The study employed a sequential, multiphase process including three workshops and field testing to ensure the new instrument was the product of input and feedback from a variety of potential stakeholders and was psychometrically sound. All study stages, including data collection and analysis, occurred in 2010. RESULTS: Stakeholder recommendations were combined with reviews of existing instruments to create the new Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). The CPAT contains four sections titled Park Information, Access and Surrounding Neighborhood, Park Activity Areas, and Park Quality and Safety. Inter-rater analyses demonstrated strong reliability for the vast majority of the items in the tool. Further, stakeholders reported a range of positive reactions resulting from their engagement in the project. CONCLUSIONS: The CPAT provides a reliable and user-friendly means of auditing parks for their potential to promote physical activity. Future use of the CPAT can facilitate greater engagement of diverse groups in evaluating and advocating for improved parks and overall healthy community design.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.018
At A Glance
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Location |
|---|---|
| 59 | Parks/Playgrounds |
| 81 | Recreational Facility/Area |
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| - | Equipment |
| 32 | Trail/path/corridor |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Crime/Safety | ✔ | ✘ |
| Cycling Infrastructure | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Adequacy/Appeal or Quality | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Access/Availablity/Proximity | ✔ | ✘ |
| Aesthetics/Beautification | ✔ | ✘ |
| Pedestrian Infrastructure | ✔ | ✘ |
| Car parking, benches, picnic table, picnic shelter, drinking fountain | ✔ | ✘ |
| Open Space/Greenness | ✔ | ✘ |
Domain(s)
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Audit tool
Measure Availability
Free. Access at http://activelivingresearch.org/community-park-audit-tool-cpat
Number of Items
140 Reported
Study location
Metro/Urban
Kansas City, Missouri, USA
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
Creation of the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT) was informed by a review of existing instruments, focus group discussions during the initial workshop with stakeholders, and three key informant interviews with researchers familiar with audit tools.
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
Not applicable
Sex
Not reported
Race/Ethnicity
White
Non-white
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
No
Sample Size
59
Study Design
Design Type
Validation/Reliability
Health Outcomes Assessed
None
Obesity Measures
Not applicable
BMI Measured or Self-reported
Not applicable
Covariates
Not available
Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity
Quantitative data for community or area
Data Reported on SES
Quantitative data for community or area
SES-related Variables
Income
How To Use
Administration
Who Administered
Researcher-administered
How Administered
Direct observation, hard-copy form
Time Required
32 minutes
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
Parks chosen to test the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT) maximized diversity with respect to location, size, key features, quality, and neighborhood income and racial composition. Participant stakeholders were randomly assigned to each other and to three to twelve parks each. They were provided with park addresses and maps, and undertook the park audits independently, after which they returned their park audit forms to study staff.
Instructions on Data Analysis
Instructions on analysis included in article
Validity (0)
There are no validity tests reported for this measure.
Reliability (3)
| Type of reliability | Construct/subscale assessed | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inter-rater | Community Park Audit Tool, access and surrounding neighborhood section | Kappa statistics (k) | k = 0.00 to 1.00 |
| Inter-rater | Community Park Audit Tool, park activity areas section | Kappa statistics (k) | k = 0.40 to 1.00 |
| Inter-rater | Community Park Audit Tool, park quality and safety section | Kappa statistics (k) | k = 0.20 to 1.00 |