Skip to main content

Internal Consistency, Concurrent Validity, and Discriminant Validity of a Measure of Public Support for Policies for Active Living in Transportation (PAL-T) in a Population-based Sample of Adults

Abstract

Active living is a broad conceptualization of physical activity that incorporates domains of exercise; recreational, household, and occupational activities; and active transportation. Policy makers develop and implement a variety of transportation policies that can influence choices about how to travel from one location to another. In making such decisions, policy makers act in part in response to public opinion or support for proposed policies. Measures of the public’s support for policies aimed at promoting active transportation can inform researchers and policy makers. This study examined the internal consistency, and concurrent and discriminant validity of a newly developed measure of the public’s support for policies for active living in transportation (PAL-T). A series of 17 items representing potential policies for promoting active transportation was generated. Two samples of participants (n = 2,001 and n = 2,502) from Montreal, Canada, were recruited via random digit dialling. Analyses were conducted on the combined data set (n = 4,503). Participants were aged 18 through 94 years (58% female). The concurrent and discriminant validity of the PAL-T was assessed by examining relationships with physical activity and smoking. To explore the usability of the PAL-T, predicted scale scores were compared to the summed values of responses. Results showed that the internal consistency of the PAL-T was 0.70. Multilevel regression demonstrated no relationship between the PAL-T and smoking status (p > 0.05) but significant relationships with utilitarian walking (p < 0.05) and cycling (p < 0.01) for at least 30 minutes on 5 days/week. The PAL-T has acceptable internal consistency and good concurrent and discriminant validity. Measuring public opinion can inform policy makers and support advocacy efforts aimed at making built environments more suitable for active transportation while allowing researchers to examine the antecedents and consequences of public support for policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

FIGURE 1.

References

  1. 1.

    Sallis JF, Linton LS, Kraft MK. The first Active Living Research conference: growth of a transdisciplinary field. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2S): 93–95.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sallis JF, Bauman A, Pratt M. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 15: 379–397.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bors P, Dessauer M, Bell R, Wilkerson R, Lee J, Strunk SL. The Active Living by Design national program: community initiatives and lessons learned. Am J Prev Med. 2009; 37(6S2): S313–S321.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Bergman P, Grjibovski AM, Hagströmer M, Patterson E, Sjöström M. Congestion road tax and physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38(2): 171–177.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cervero R, Kockelman K. Travel demand and the 3Ds: density, diversity, and design. Transport Res Part D. 1997; 2(3): 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Gauvin L, Riva M, Barnett T, Richard L, Craig CL. Association between neighborhood active living potential and walking. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 167(8): 944–953.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Riva M, Apparicio P, Gauvin L, Brodeur J-M. Establishing the soundness of administrative spatial units for operationalising the active living potential of residential environments: an exemplar for designing optimal zones. Int J Health Geogr. 2008; 7(1): 43–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003; 25: 89–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 29(4): 173–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003; 56(1): 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Smith MA. Public opinion, elections, and representation within a market economy. Am J Polit Sci. 1999; 43: 842–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lewis PG, Baldassare M. The complexity of public attitudes toward compact development: survey evidence from five states. J Am Plann Assoc. 2010; 76(2): 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fuller D, Gauvin L, Kestens Y, et al. Prevalence and correlates of use of a new public bicycle share program in Montreal, Canada. Am J Prev Med, in press.

  15. 15.

    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12 country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35: 1381–1395.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Gauvin L, Richard L, Craig CL, et al. From walkability to active living potential: an “ecometric” validation study. Am J Prev Med. 2005; 28(2S): 126–133.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Riva M, Gauvin L, Apparicio P, Brodeur J-M. Disentangling the relative influence of built and socioeconomic environments on walking: the contribution of areas homogenous along exposures of interest. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 69(9): 1296–1305.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2007; 39: 1423–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cronbach LJ, Nageswari R, Gleser GC. Theory of generalizability: a liberation of relability theory. Br J Stat Psychol. 1963; 16: 137–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Crocker L, Aligna J. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    DeBoeck P, Wilson M. Explanatory Item Response Models: A Generalized Linear and Nonlinear Approach. New York, NY: Springer; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Filiatrault J, Gauvin L, Fournier M, et al. Evidence of the psychometric qualities of a simplified version of the activities-specific balance confidence scale for community-dwelling seniors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007; 88: 664–672.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Handy S, Sallis JF, Weber D, Maibach E, Hollander M. Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys. J Am Plann Assoc. 2008; 74(2): 209–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010; 376(9748): 1261–1271.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Macintyre S, Ellaway A. Ecological approaches: rediscovering the role of the physical and social environment. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, eds. Social Epidemiology. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    O’Campo P. Invited Commentary: advancing theory and methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and health. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157(1): 9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 1988; 15(4): 351–377.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Richard L, Potvin L, Kishchuk N, Price H, Green L. Assessment of the integration of the ecological approach in health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 1996; 10(4): 318–328.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Richard L, Gauvin L, Raine K. Ecological Frameworks revisited: their uses and evolution over two decades. Annu Rev Public Health, in press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Behavioral Medicine in Seattle, April 2010. Research reported in this paper was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health research (CIHR Grant # GIR-99711to the authors and LG’s Applied Public Health Chair). DF holds a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. LG holds a CIHR/CRPO (Centre de recherche en prevention de l’obésité) Chair in Applied Public Health on Neighborhoods, Lifestyle, and Healthy Body Weight.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Fuller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fuller, D., Gauvin, L., Fournier, M. et al. Internal Consistency, Concurrent Validity, and Discriminant Validity of a Measure of Public Support for Policies for Active Living in Transportation (PAL-T) in a Population-based Sample of Adults. J Urban Health 89, 258–269 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9650-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Active living
  • Physical activity
  • Public opinion
  • Transportation
  • Active transportation