Development and testing of mobile technology for community park improvements: validity and reliability of the eCPAT application with youth
- 127 Downloads
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.
KeywordsParks 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 23.Bozlak CT, Kelley MA. Participatory action research with Youth. Participatory Action Research, 2014: 67.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.Google Scholar
- 27.Bell B. Children, youth, and civic (dis) engagement: digital technology and citizenship, 2005.Google Scholar
- 36.Purcell K, Rainie L, Heaps A, et al. How teens do research in the digital world. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 2012Google 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.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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 51.Wargo JM. PhoneGap essentials: Building cross-platform mobile apps. Addison-Wesley, (2012)Google Scholar
- 52.Royce WW. Managing the development of large software systems. Paper presented at: proceedings of IEEE WESCON1970.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.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.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
- 72.Madden M, Lenhart A, Duggan M, Cortesi S, Gasser U. Teens and technology 2013. Pew Internet Am. Life Project, 2013.Google Scholar
- 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.National Recreation and Park Association. Prescribing parks for better health: Success stories, 2014.Google Scholar
- 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.