nach oben

Erschienen in:

04.05.2016 | Original Research

Development and testing of mobile technology for community park improvements: validity and reliability of the eCPAT application with youth

verfasst von: Gina M. Besenyi, PhD, Paul Diehl, MS, Benjamin Schooley, PhD, Brie M. Turner-McGrievy, PhD, Sara Wilcox, PhD, Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis, PhD, Andrew T. Kaczynski, PhD

Erschienen in: Translational Behavioral Medicine | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Creation of mobile technology environmental audit tools can provide a more interactive way for youth to engage with communities and facilitate participation in health promotion efforts. This study describes the development and validity and reliability testing of an electronic version of the Community Park Audit Tool (eCPAT). eCPAT consists of 149 items and incorporates a variety of technology benefits. Criterion-related validity and inter-rater reliability were evaluated using data from 52 youth across 47 parks in Greenville County, SC. A large portion of items (>70 %) demonstrated either fair or moderate to perfect validity and reliability. All but six items demonstrated excellent percent agreement. The eCPAT app is a user-friendly tool that provides a comprehensive assessment of park environments. Given the proliferation of smartphones, tablets, and other electronic devices among both adolescents and adults, the eCPAT app has potential to be distributed and used widely for a variety of health promotion purposes.

Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011–2012. J Am Med Assoc. 2014; 311(8): 806-814.CrossRef

Ferraro KF, Thorpe RJ Jr, Wilkinson JA. The life course of severe obesity: does childhood overweight matter? J Gerontol Ser B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003; 58(2): S110-119.CrossRef

McGovern L, Johnson JN, Paulo R, et al. Treatment of pediatric obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. 2013.

Benjamin RM. The surgeon general’s vision for a healthy and fit nation. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(4): 514.PubMedPubMedCentral

Knuth AG, Hallal PC. Temporal trends in physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2009; 6(5): 548-559.CrossRefPubMed

American Academy of Pediatrics. The built environment: designing communities to promote physical activity in children. Pediatrics. 2009; 123(6): 1591-1598.CrossRef

Institute of Medicine. Does the built environment influence physical activity?: Examining the evidence. Committee on Physical Activity Land Use. National Research Council Transportation Research Board, (2005).

Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(S2): 159-168.CrossRefPubMed

Epstein LH, Raja S, Gold SS, Paluch RA, Pak Y, Roemmich JN. Reducing sedentary behavior: the relationship between park area and the physical activity of youth. Psych Sci: J Am Psych Soc. 2006; 17(8): 654-659.CrossRef

10.

Bai H, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Kaczynski AT, Besenyi GM. Perceptions of neighborhood park quality: associations with physical activity and body mass index. Ann Behav Med. 2013; 45(1): 39-48.CrossRef

11.

Besenyi GM, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Bergstrom R, Oestman KB, Colabianchi N. Exploring sex differences in the relationship between park proximity and features and youth physical activity. Children, Youth, and Environments, (2016).

12.

Potwarka LR, Kaczynski AT, Flack AL. Places to play: association of park space and facilities with healthy weight status among children. J Community Health. 2008; 33(5): 344-350.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(5): e1381-1389.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Colabianchi N, Kinsella AE, Coulton CJ, Moore SM. Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Prev Med. 2009; 48(2): 140-143.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Tester J, Baker R. Making the playfields even: evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2009; 48(4): 316-320.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006; 27: 297-322.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Checkoway B, Allison T, Montoya C. Youth participation in public policy at the municipal level. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2005; 27(10): 1149-1162.CrossRef

18.

Ribisl KM, Steckler A, Linnan L, et al. The North Carolina youth empowerment study (NCYES): a participatory research study examining the impact of youth empowerment for tobacco use prevention. Health Educ Behav. 2004; 31(5): 597-614.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rodríguez LF, Conchas GQ. Preventing truancy and dropout among urban middle school youth understanding community-based action from the student’s perspective. Educ Urban Soc. 2009; 41(2): 216-247.CrossRef

20.

Millstein RA, Sallis JF. Youth advocacy for obesity prevention: the next wave of social change for health. Trans Behav Med. 2011; 1(3): 497-505.CrossRef

21.

Shilton T. Advocacy for physical activity-from evidence to influence. Promotion Education. 2006; 13(2): 118-126.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Derose KP, Marsh T, Mariscal M, Pina-Cortez S, Cohen DA. Involving community stakeholders to increase park use and physical activity. Prev Med. 2014; 64: 14-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Bozlak CT, Kelley MA. Participatory action research with Youth. Participatory Action Research, 2014: 67.

24.

Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Besenyi GM. Development and testing of a community stakeholder park audit tool. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 42(3): 242-249.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Besenyi GM, Carter TK, Gordon KL, Oniffrey T, Pope AW, Kaczynski AT. Development and preliminary outcomes of the healthy young people empowerment (HYPE) Project. J Commun Pract. in progress.

26.

Flicker S, Maley O, Ridgley A, Biscope S, Lombardo C, Skinner HA. e-PAR using technology and participatory action research to engage youth in health promotion. Action Res. 2008; 6(3): 285-303.CrossRef

27.

Bell B. Children, youth, and civic (dis) engagement: digital technology and citizenship, 2005.

28.

Skinner H, Biscope S, Poland B, Goldberg E. How adolescents use technology for health information: implications for health professionals from focus group studies. J Med Internet Res. 2003; 5(4): e32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Hillier A. Childhood overweight and the built environment: making technology part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Annals Am Acad Political Soc Sci. 2008; 615(1): 56-82.CrossRef

30.

Shank DB, Cotten SR. Does technology empower urban youth? The relationship of technology use to self-efficacy. Comput Educ. 2014; 70: 184-193.CrossRef

31.

Livingstone S. Children’s use of the internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media Soc. 2003; 5(2): 147-166.CrossRef

32.

Valaitis RK. Computers and the internet: tools for youth empowerment. J Med Internet Res. 2005; 7(5): 1-18.CrossRef

33.

Al-Kodmany K, Betancur J, Vidyarthi S. E-Civic engagement and the youth: new frontiers and challenges for urban planning. Int J E-Planning Res (IJEPR). 2012; 1(3): 87-104.CrossRef

34.

London RA, Pastor M, Servon LJ, Rosner R, Wallace A. The role of community technology centers in promoting youth development. Youth Soc. 2010; 42(2): 199-228.CrossRef

35.

Findholt NE, Michael YL, Davis MM. Photovoice engages rural youth in childhood obesity prevention. Public Health Nurs. 2011; 28(2): 186-192.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Purcell K, Rainie L, Heaps A, et al. How teens do research in the digital world. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012

37.

Gant LM, Shimshock K, Allen-Meares P, et al. Effects of photovoice: civic engagement among older youth in urban communities. J Commun Pract. 2009; 17(4): 358-376.CrossRef

38.

Besenyi GM, Schooley BL, Turner-McGrievy G, Wilcox S, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Kaczynski AT. The electronic community park audit tool (eCPAT) project: exploring the use of mobile technology for youth empowerment and advocacy for healthy community policy, systems, and environmental change. in progress.

39.

Bedimo-Rung AL, Gustat J, Tompkins BJ, Rice J, Thompson J. Development of a direct observation instrument to measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2006; 3(Suppl 1): S176-S189.CrossRef

40.

Troped PJ, Cromley EK, Fragala MS, et al. Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the path environment audit tool (PEAT). J Phys Act Health. 2006; 3: S158.CrossRef

41.

Pikora TJ, Bull FC, Jamrozik K, Knuiman M, Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 23(3): 187-194.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 36(4): S99-S123. e112.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

DeBate RD, Koby EJ, Looney TE, et al. Utility of the physical activity resource assessment for child-centric physical activity intervention planning in two urban neighborhoods. J Community Health. 2011; 36(1): 132-140.CrossRefPubMed

44.

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; 2(1): 13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006; 38(9): 1682-1691.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Hoehner CM, Ivy A, Ramirez LB, Meriwether B, Brownson RC. How reliably do community members audit the neighborhood environment for its support of physical activity? Implications for participatory research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006; 12(3): 270-277.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Moudon AV, Lee C. Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental audit instruments. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18(1): 21-37.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Rosenberg D, Ding D, Sallis JF, et al. Neighborhood environment walkability scale for youth (NEWS-Y): reliability and relationship with physical activity. Prev Med. 2009; 49(2): 213-218.CrossRefPubMed

49.

O’Brien HL, Toms EG. What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2008; 59(6): 938-955.CrossRef

50.

Kasmel A, Tanggaard P. Evaluation of changes in individual community-related empowerment in community health promotion interventions in Estonia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011; 8(6): 1772-1791.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Wargo JM. PhoneGap essentials: Building cross-platform mobile apps. Addison-Wesley, (2012)

52.

Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Paper presented at: proceedings of IEEE WESCON1970.

53.

Wang CC. Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. J Commun Pract. 2006; 14(1–2): 147-161.CrossRef

54.

Gallerani DG, Besenyi GM, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Kaczynski AT. We actually care and we want to make the parks better: a qualitative study of youth experiences and perceptions after conducting park audits. Preventive Medicine under review.

55.

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. The measurement of interrater agreement, vol. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2004.

57.

Rung AL, Gustat J, Tompkins BJ, Rice JC, Thomson J. Development of a direct observation instrument to measure environmental characteristics of parks for physical activity, 2010.

58.

Zenk SN, Schulz AJ, Mentz G, et al. Inter-rater and test–retest reliability: methods and results for the neighborhood observational checklist. Health Place. 2007; 13(2): 452-465.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Sallis JF, Floyd MF, Rodríguez DA, Saelens BE. Role of built environments in physical activity, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2012; 125(5): 729-737.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6): 551-558.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46(5): 423-429.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005; 85(3): 257-268.PubMed

63.

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.CrossRef

64.

65.

Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2006; 3: 19.CrossRef

66.

Thompson WD, Walter SD. A reappraisal of the kappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41(10): 949-958.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6): 543-549.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Burd L. Developing technological initiatives for youth participation and local community engagement. New Directions Youth Dev. 2010; 2010(128): 95-104.CrossRef

69.

Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc. 2012; 17(2): 29.

70.

Krasny ME, Bonney R. Environmental education through citizen science and participatory action research. Environmental education and advocacy: changing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005: 292-320.

71.

Jennings LB, Parra-Medina DM, Hilfinger-Messias DK, McLoughlin K. Toward a critical social theory of youth empowerment. J Commun Pract. 2006; 14(1–2): 31-55.CrossRef

72.

Madden M, Lenhart A, Duggan M, Cortesi S, Gasser U. Teens and technology 2013. Pew Internet Am. Life Project, 2013.

73.

Wheeler K, Razani N, Bashir Z. Park prescriptions in practice: the community driven way. Paper presented at: Active Living Research Conference, 2014; San Diego, CA.

74.

National Recreation and Park Association. Prescribing parks for better health: Success stories, 2014.

75.

National Recreation and Park Association. PROGRAGIS. 2015; http://www.nrpa.org/PRORAGIS/. Accessed March 23, 2015.

76.

Trust for Public Land. Center for City Park Excellence: 2014 City Park Facts Report. 2014; https://www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/files_upload/2014_CityParkFacts.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2015.

Titel: Development and testing of mobile technology for community park improvements: validity and reliability of the eCPAT application with youth
verfasst von: Gina M. Besenyi, PhD
Paul Diehl, MS
Benjamin Schooley, PhD
Brie M. Turner-McGrievy, PhD
Sara Wilcox, PhD
Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis, PhD
Andrew T. Kaczynski, PhD
Publikationsdatum: 04.05.2016
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Translational Behavioral Medicine / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 1869-6716
Elektronische ISSN: 1613-9860
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0405-9

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Simplified Novel Application (SNApp) framework: a guide to developing and implementing second-generation mobile applications for behavioral health research

Examining the role of a community coalition in facilitating policy and environmental changes to promote physical activity: the case of Get Fit Kaua‘i

Recall of indoor tanning salon warnings and safety guidelines among a national sample of tanners

A pilot study evaluating the effects of a youth advocacy program on youth readiness to advocate for environment and policy changes for obesity prevention

Development of SmokeFree Baby: a smoking cessation smartphone app for pregnant smokers

Society of Behavioral Medicine supports implementation of high quality lung cancer screening in high-risk populations