Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 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: S190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the City of Greenville Parks and Recreation Department; the Greenville County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; and LiveWell Greenville for their assistance with this study. This study was partially supported by grants from the South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute (NIH/NCATS Grant Number UL1TR000062), the University of South Carolina SPARC Graduate Research Program, the University of Missouri, and the National Recreation and Park Association.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical and Digital Health Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA

    Gina M. Besenyi PhD

  2. Integrated Information Technology, College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Paul Diehl MS & Benjamin Schooley PhD

  3. Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Brie M. Turner-McGrievy PhD & Andrew T. Kaczynski PhD

  4. Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Sara Wilcox PhD & Andrew T. Kaczynski PhD

  5. Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Sara Wilcox PhD

  6. Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

    Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis PhD

Authors
  1. Gina M. Besenyi PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Diehl MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin Schooley PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brie M. Turner-McGrievy PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sara Wilcox PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrew T. Kaczynski PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gina M. Besenyi PhD.

Ethics declarations

This study occurred in collaboration with Greenville County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism; the City of Greenville Parks and Recreation Department; and LiveWell Greenville and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of South Carolina.

Additional information

Implications

The eCPAT application is valid and reliable for use with youth populations.

Youth can make valuable contributions within participatory action research processes for community health promotion.

The eCPAT app is a useful tool that has potential to be distributed and used widely by the general public.

The eCPAT app has potential to be incorporated into Park Prescriptions or similar initiatives to improve community awareness of park features and attributes in an effort to increase park-based PA.

The eCPAT app can be adapted for use by local planning officials to collect and make data-driven decisions based on specific community needs.

The eCPAT app can assist with standardization of aggregated nationwide parks and recreation resource data.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Besenyi, G.M., Diehl, P., Schooley, B. et al. Development and testing of mobile technology for community park improvements: validity and reliability of the eCPAT application with youth. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 6, 519–532 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0405-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0405-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation