Abstract
Citation
Saelens BE, Frank LD, Auffrey C, Whitaker RC, Burdette HL, Colabianchi N. Measuring physical environments of parks and playgrounds: EAPRS instrument development and inter-rater reliability. J Phys Act Health 2006;3(Suppl 1):S190-S207.
Abstract source: journals.humankinetics.com
Background: Reliable and comprehensive measurement of physical activity settings is needed to examine environment-behavior relations. Methods: Surveyed park professionals (n = 34) and users (n = 29) identified park and playground elements (e.g., trail) and qualities (e.g., condition). Responses guided observational instrument development for environmental assessment of public recreation spaces (EAPRS). Item inter-rater reliability was evaluated following observations in 92 parks and playgrounds. Instrument revision and further reliability testing were conducted with observations in 21 parks and 20 playgrounds. Results: EAPRS evaluates trail/path, specific use (e.g., picnic), water-related, amenity (e.g., benches), and play elements, and their qualities. Most EAPRS items had goodexcellent reliability, particularly presence/number items. Reliability improved from the original (n = 1088 items) to revised (n = 646 items) instrument for condition, coverage/shade, and openness/visibility items. Reliability was especially good for play features, but cleanliness items were generally unreliable. Conclusions: The EAPRS instrument provides comprehensive assessment of parks’ and playgrounds’ physical environment, with generally high reliability.
Full Text
not available
At A Glance
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Location |
|---|---|
| 133 | Total Environments/Locations |
| 133 | Parks/Playgrounds |
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| 61 | Large park/park system |
| 40 | Small park pocket/neighborhood park |
| 32 | Playground |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Facility Adequacy/Appeal or Quality | ✔ | ✘ |
Domain(s)
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Environmental observation
Measure Availability
Free. Access at Measures
Download measure from seattlechildrens.org
Number of Items
646 Reported
Study location
Metro/Urban
OH, USA
Cincinnati/Hamilton County and Cleveland area (OH), USA
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
EAPRS development included input from 44 park & recreation professionals (34 of whom provided 2 rounds of input) and 40 frequent park users (29 of whom provided 2 rounds of input)
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
Not applicable
Sex
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity
Not reported
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
Not applicable
Sample Size
Not Available
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
Direct observation, hard-copy form
Time Required
Average 67 minutes
Training Required
Yes, time not reported
Instructions on Use
Access at Measures
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 (10)
| Type of reliability | Construct/subscale assessed | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inter-rater | Water areas and features (Original) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 51.5% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Other park amenities and facilities (e.g., open space) (Revised) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 43.2% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Play equipment and fields/courts (Revised) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 69.9% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Paved & Unpaved Trails and Path items (Original) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 51.8% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Paved & Unpaved Trails and Path items (Revised) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 38% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Play equipment and fields/courts (Original) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 52.6% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Other park amenities and facilities (e.g., open space) (Original) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 47.2% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Overall EAPRS (Original) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 69.6% of the 800 items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Overall EAPRS (Revised) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 65.5% of the 506 items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |
| Inter-rater | Water areas and features (Revised) | Percent of items with a reliability coefficient >=0.60, considered to be in the Good-Excellent (G-E) range | 45.5% of the items had Good to Excellent reliability coefficients |