Abstract
Citation
Yousefian A, Hennessy E, Umstattd MR, Economos CD, Hallam JS, Hyatt RR, Hartley D. Development of the Rural Active Living Assessment Tools: measuring rural environments. Prev Med 2010 Jan;50 Suppl 1:S86-92. Epub 2009 Oct 7.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Develop rural-specific assessment tools to be used by researchers and practitioners to measure the activity-friendliness of rural communities. METHOD: The tools were created through a mixed-methods investigation into the determinants of physical activity among rural populations. This informed the development of a conceptual framework defining activity-friendly rural environments. Questions were generated to reflect applicable existing urban-based variables and rural conceptual model elements. Pilot testing was conducted in seven rural US communities during the fall of 2008. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: The Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) Tools include three components: Town-Wide (18 town characteristic questions, and inventory of 15 recreational amenities), Program and Policy (20 questions), and Street Segment (28 questions). We found that the Town-wide and Program and Policy tools were feasible for community members to implement. The observed agreement and kappa statistic across all items for the Street Segment Assessment were substantial (91.9% and 0.78, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The RALA Tools were shown to be feasible and reliability was supported. They assess features believed to be supportive of active living in rural environments, offer users a resource to assess rural environments for activity-friendliness, and may also inform the design of interventions to help rural communities become more active and healthy.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.08.018
At A Glance
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Location |
|---|---|
| 7 | Total Environments/Locations |
| 7 | Community/Neighborhood as a Whole |
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| 7 | Community |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Policy | ✘ | ✔ |
| Street Connectivity | ✘ | ✔ |
| Pedestrian/Traffic Safety | ✔ | ✘ |
| Facility Access/Availablity/Proximity | ✘ | ✔ |
| Land Use | ✔ | ✘ |
| Population/Housing Density | ✔ | ✘ |
| Pedestrian Infrastructure | ✔ | ✔ |
| Recreation and fitness centers, school activity programs | ✔ | ✘ |
Domain(s)
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Questionnaire
Environmental observation
Measure Availability
Free. Access at Active Living Research
Download measure from activelivingresearch.org
Number of Items
81 Reported
Study location
Small Town/Rural
USA
three towns in Maine, one each in Mississippi, Alabama, and California; and one county in Kentucky
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
Nothing to add
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
Physical activity/inactivity
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
Self-administered
Researcher-administered
How Administered
In-person
Email/postal mail
Time Required
Not reported
Training Required
Yes, time not reported
Instructions on Use
Access at Active Living Research
Data Analysis
Data Collection/Analysis Costs
Not available
Data Collection/Protocol
The TWA and PPA tools (55Q) were sent to community members considered knowledgeable about the town, to gather their feedback, comments, and questions about the tool's usability and appropriateness. The SSA (28Q) .... Trained project staff, community members, graduate students, and undergraduates completed this work.
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 | Subjective Street Segment Traffic Volume | Percent agreement | 70.3% |
| Inter-rater | Subjective Street Segment Conditions | Percent agreement | 72 - 97.3% |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Land use | Kappa statistic | 0.69 - 0.83 |
| Inter-rater | Subjective Street Segment aesthetics | Percent agreement | 65.3% |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Primary land use and terrain | Kappa statistic | 0.68 |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Walkability | Kappa statistic | 0.57 - 0.85 |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Land use | Percent agreement | 90.8 - 97.5% |
| Inter-rater | Subjective Street Segment Walkability | Percent agreement | 54.2% |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Primary land use and terrain | Percent agreement | 92% |
| Inter-rater | Objective Street Segment Walkability | Percent agreement | 83.1% - 92.7% |