Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Tanya M Horacek, Elif Dede Yildirim, Dean Seidman, Carol Byrd-Bredbenner, Sarah Colby, Adrienne A. White, Karla P. Shelnutt, Melissa D. Olfert, Anne E. Mathews, Kristin Riggsbee, Lisa Franzen-Castle, Jesse Stabile Morrell, Kendra Kattelmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool - Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20-42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number5819752
JournalJournal of Environmental and Public Health
Volume2019
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Recreation
Semantic Differential
Equipment Design
Training Support
Fees and Charges
Marketing
Esthetics
Mental Competency
Analysis of Variance
Equipment and Supplies
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit. / Horacek, Tanya M; Yildirim, Elif Dede; Seidman, Dean; Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol; Colby, Sarah; White, Adrienne A.; Shelnutt, Karla P.; Olfert, Melissa D.; Mathews, Anne E.; Riggsbee, Kristin; Franzen-Castle, Lisa; Morrell, Jesse Stabile; Kattelmann, Kendra.

In: Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Vol. 2019, 5819752, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Horacek, TM, Yildirim, ED, Seidman, D, Byrd-Bredbenner, C, Colby, S, White, AA, Shelnutt, KP, Olfert, MD, Mathews, AE, Riggsbee, K, Franzen-Castle, L, Morrell, JS & Kattelmann, K 2019, 'Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit', Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2019, 5819752. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5819752
Horacek, Tanya M ; Yildirim, Elif Dede ; Seidman, Dean ; Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol ; Colby, Sarah ; White, Adrienne A. ; Shelnutt, Karla P. ; Olfert, Melissa D. ; Mathews, Anne E. ; Riggsbee, Kristin ; Franzen-Castle, Lisa ; Morrell, Jesse Stabile ; Kattelmann, Kendra. / Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit. In: Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2019 ; Vol. 2019.
@article{144ecf138a59470db9aa1943bb3d2311,
title = "Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit",
abstract = "This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool - Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8{\%}) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20-42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.",
author = "Horacek, {Tanya M} and Yildirim, {Elif Dede} and Dean Seidman and Carol Byrd-Bredbenner and Sarah Colby and White, {Adrienne A.} and Shelnutt, {Karla P.} and Olfert, {Melissa D.} and Mathews, {Anne E.} and Kristin Riggsbee and Lisa Franzen-Castle and Morrell, {Jesse Stabile} and Kendra Kattelmann",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1155/2019/5819752",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2019",
journal = "Journal of Environmental and Public Health",
issn = "1687-9805",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

AU - Horacek, Tanya M

AU - Yildirim, Elif Dede

AU - Seidman, Dean

AU - Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol

AU - Colby, Sarah

AU - White, Adrienne A.

AU - Shelnutt, Karla P.

AU - Olfert, Melissa D.

AU - Mathews, Anne E.

AU - Riggsbee, Kristin

AU - Franzen-Castle, Lisa

AU - Morrell, Jesse Stabile

AU - Kattelmann, Kendra

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool - Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20-42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.

AB - This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool - Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20-42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067024606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067024606&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1155/2019/5819752

DO - 10.1155/2019/5819752

M3 - Article

VL - 2019

JO - Journal of Environmental and Public Health

JF - Journal of Environmental and Public Health

SN - 1687-9805

M1 - 5819752

ER -