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 |
---|---|
17 | Total Environments/Locations |
- | Gyms/Fitness Centers |
- | Parks/Playgrounds |
- | Recreational Facility/Area |
- | Religious Facilities |
- | School |
- | trails, community centers |
# | Scale |
---|---|
17 | Neighborhood |
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 |