Abstract

Citation

Lee RE, Booth KM, Reese-Smith JY, Regan G, Howard HH. The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2005 Sep 14;2:13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood environment factors may influence physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to develop and test a brief instrument to systematically document and describe the type, features, amenities, quality and incivilities of a variety of PA resources. METHOD: The one-page Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument was developed to assess all publicly available PA resources in thirteen urban lower income, high ethnic minority concentration neighborhoods that surrounded public housing developments (HDs) and four higher income, low ethnic minority concentration comparison neighborhoods. Neighborhoods had similar population density and connectivity. Trained field coders rated 97 PA resources (including parks, churches, schools, sports facilities, fitness centers, community centers, and trails) on location, type, cost, features, amenities, quality and incivilities. Assessments typically took about 10 minutes to complete. RESULTS: HD neighborhoods had a mean of 4.9 PA resources (n = 73) with considerable variability in the type of resources available for each neighborhood. Comparison neighborhoods had a mean of 6 resources (n = 24). Most resources were accessible at no cost (82%). Resources in both types of neighborhoods typically had about 2 to 3 PA features and amenities, and the quality was usually mediocre to good in both types of neighborhoods. Incivilities at PA resources in HD neighborhoods were significantly more common than in comparison neighborhoods. CONCLUSION: Although PA resources were similar in number, features and amenities, the overall appearance of the resources in HD neighborhoods was much worse as indicated by substantially worse incivilities ratings in HD neighborhoods. The more comprehensive assessment, including features, amenities and incivilities, provided by the PARA may be important to distinguish between PA resources in lower and higher deprivation areas.

Full Text

The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-2-13

At A Glance

Physical Activity Environment Variables

# Type of Environment/Location
17Total Environments/Locations
-Gyms/Fitness Centers
-Parks/Playgrounds
-Recreational Facility/Area
-Religious Facilities
-School
-trails, community centers
# Scale
17Neighborhood
Measure objective perceived
Affordability/Pricing
Street Connectivity
Crime/Safety
Facility Adequacy/Appeal or Quality
Aesthetics/Beautification
Population/Housing Density

Domain(s)

Physical Activity Environment

Measure Type

Environmental observation

Measure Availability

Free. Access at UNDO Assessment Tools

Download measure from grants.hhp.coe.uh.edu

Number of Items

43 Reported

Study location

Metro/Urban

USA

Kansas City (KS) and Kansas City (MO), USA

Languages

English

Information about Development of Measure

Nothing to add

Study Design

Study Participants

Age

Not applicable

Sex

Not applicable

Race/Ethnicity

Non-white

Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES

Yes

Sample Size

Not Available

Study Design

Design Type

Instrument/Method Development Without Validation/Reliability

Health Outcomes Assessed

None

Obesity Measures

Not applicable

BMI Measured or Self-reported

Not applicable

Covariates

Sociodemographic characteristics (socioeconomic status, race)

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

10-30 minutes

Training Required

Yes, time not reported

Instructions on Use

Access at UNDO Assessment Tools

Data Analysis

Data Collection/Analysis Costs

Not available

Data Collection/Protocol

Not available

Instructions on Data Analysis

Not reported

Validity (0)

There are no validity tests reported for this measure.

Reliability (1)

Type of reliability Construct/subscale assessed Test/statistic used Result
Other Reliability tests of a 10% overlap showed good reliability (r's>0.77) (p.4). Presumably this is inter-rater reliability but is not specifically stated