Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 519–532 | Cite as

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

  • Gina M. BesenyiEmail author
  • Paul Diehl
  • Benjamin Schooley
  • Brie M. Turner-McGrievy
  • Sara Wilcox
  • Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis
  • Andrew T. Kaczynski
Original Research


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.


Parks Youth Technology Engagement Environment Audit eCPAT 



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.

Compliance with ethical standards

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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGovern L, Johnson JN, Paulo R, et al. Treatment of pediatric obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benjamin RM. The surgeon general’s vision for a healthy and fit nation. Public Health Rep. 2010; 125(4): 514.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knuth AG, Hallal PC. Temporal trends in physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. 2009; 6(5): 548-559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Academy of Pediatrics. The built environment: designing communities to promote physical activity in children. Pediatrics. 2009; 123(6): 1591-1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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).Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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).Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, et al. Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 2006; 118(5): e1381-1389.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shilton T. Advocacy for physical activity-from evidence to influence. Promotion Education. 2006; 13(2): 118-126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bozlak CT, Kelley MA. Participatory action research with Youth. Participatory Action Research, 2014: 67.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bell B. Children, youth, and civic (dis) engagement: digital technology and citizenship, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shank DB, Cotten SR. Does technology empower urban youth? The relationship of technology use to self-efficacy. Comput Educ. 2014; 70: 184-193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Livingstone S. Children’s use of the internet: reflections on the emerging research agenda. New Media Soc. 2003; 5(2): 147-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Valaitis RK. Computers and the internet: tools for youth empowerment. J Med Internet Res. 2005; 7(5): 1-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Findholt NE, Michael YL, Davis MM. Photovoice engages rural youth in childhood obesity prevention. Public Health Nurs. 2011; 28(2): 186-192.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Purcell K, Rainie L, Heaps A, et al. How teens do research in the digital world. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moudon AV, Lee C. Walking and bicycling: an evaluation of environmental audit instruments. Am J Health Promot. 2003; 18(1): 21-37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wargo JM. PhoneGap essentials: Building cross-platform mobile apps. Addison-Wesley, (2012)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Paper presented at: proceedings of IEEE WESCON1970.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang CC. Youth participation in photovoice as a strategy for community change. J Commun Pract. 2006; 14(1–2): 147-161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. The measurement of interrater agreement, vol. 3. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cicchetti DV, Feinstein AR. High agreement but low kappa: II. Resolving the paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6): 551-558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Byrt T, Bishop J, Carlin JB. Bias, prevalence and kappa. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993; 46(5): 423-429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005; 85(3): 257-268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Thompson WD, Walter SD. A reappraisal of the kappa coefficient. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988; 41(10): 949-958.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Feinstein AR, Cicchetti DV. High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990; 43(6): 543-549.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Burd L. Developing technological initiatives for youth participation and local community engagement. New Directions Youth Dev. 2010; 2010(128): 95-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Madden M, Lenhart A, Duggan M, Cortesi S, Gasser U. Teens and technology 2013. Pew Internet Am. Life Project, 2013.Google Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    National Recreation and Park Association. Prescribing parks for better health: Success stories, 2014.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    National Recreation and Park Association. PROGRAGIS. 2015; Accessed March 23, 2015.
  76. 76.
    Trust for Public Land. Center for City Park Excellence: 2014 City Park Facts Report. 2014; Accessed March 24, 2015.

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gina M. Besenyi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Diehl
    • 2
  • Benjamin Schooley
    • 2
  • Brie M. Turner-McGrievy
    • 3
  • Sara Wilcox
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis
    • 6
  • Andrew T. Kaczynski
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Clinical and Digital Health Sciences, College of Allied Health SciencesAugusta UniversityAugustaUSA
  2. 2.Integrated Information Technology, College of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport ManagementUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  5. 5.Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  6. 6.Parks, Recreation, and Tourism, School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations