Cargando…
Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016
We reviewed prominent audit tools used to assess the physical environment of parks and their potential to promote physical activity. To accomplish this, we manually searched the Active Living Research website (http://www.activelivingresearch.com) for published observational audit tools that evaluate...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5201154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27978411 http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160176 |
_version_ | 1782489297975246848 |
---|---|
author | Joseph, Rodney P. Maddock, Jay E. |
author_facet | Joseph, Rodney P. Maddock, Jay E. |
author_sort | Joseph, Rodney P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | We reviewed prominent audit tools used to assess the physical environment of parks and their potential to promote physical activity. To accomplish this, we manually searched the Active Living Research website (http://www.activelivingresearch.com) for published observational audit tools that evaluate the physical environment of parks, and we reviewed park audit tools used in studies included in a systematic review of observational park-based physical activity studies. We identified 5 observational audit tools for review: Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool–Direct Observation (BRAT-DO), Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT), Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) tool, Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), and Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST). All 5 tools have established inter-rater reliability estimates ranging from moderate to good. However, BRAT-DO is the only tool with published validity. We found substantial heterogeneity among the 5 in length, format, intended users, and specific items assessed. Researchers, practitioners, or community coalition members should review the goal of their specific project and match their goal with the most appropriate tool and the people who will be using it. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5201154 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-52011542017-01-06 Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 Joseph, Rodney P. Maddock, Jay E. Prev Chronic Dis Tools and Techniques We reviewed prominent audit tools used to assess the physical environment of parks and their potential to promote physical activity. To accomplish this, we manually searched the Active Living Research website (http://www.activelivingresearch.com) for published observational audit tools that evaluate the physical environment of parks, and we reviewed park audit tools used in studies included in a systematic review of observational park-based physical activity studies. We identified 5 observational audit tools for review: Bedimo-Rung Assessment Tool–Direct Observation (BRAT-DO), Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT), Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces (EAPRS) tool, Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA), and Quality of Public Open Space Tool (POST). All 5 tools have established inter-rater reliability estimates ranging from moderate to good. However, BRAT-DO is the only tool with published validity. We found substantial heterogeneity among the 5 in length, format, intended users, and specific items assessed. Researchers, practitioners, or community coalition members should review the goal of their specific project and match their goal with the most appropriate tool and the people who will be using it. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2016-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5201154/ /pubmed/27978411 http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160176 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is a publication of the U.S. Government. This publication is in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from this work may be reprinted freely. Use of these materials should be properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Tools and Techniques Joseph, Rodney P. Maddock, Jay E. Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title | Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title_full | Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title_fullStr | Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title_short | Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016 |
title_sort | comparative analysis of five observational audit tools to assess the physical environment of parks for physical activity, 2016 |
topic | Tools and Techniques |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5201154/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27978411 http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160176 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT josephrodneyp comparativeanalysisoffiveobservationalaudittoolstoassessthephysicalenvironmentofparksforphysicalactivity2016 AT maddockjaye comparativeanalysisoffiveobservationalaudittoolstoassessthephysicalenvironmentofparksforphysicalactivity2016 |