Rahma Ajja1, Michael W Beets2, Jessica Chandler2, Andrew T Kaczynski3, Dianne S Ward4. 1. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. Electronic address: ajja@email.sc.edu. 2. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 3. Department of Health Promotion Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 4. Department of Nutrition, Schools of Public Health and Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in evaluating the physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE) policy and practice environment characteristics in settings frequented by youth (≤18years). OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates the measurement properties of audit tools designed to assess PA and HE policy and practice environment characteristics in settings that care for youth (e.g., childcare, school, afterschool, summer camp). METHOD: Three electronic databases, reference lists, educational department and national health organizations' web pages were searched between January 1980 and February 2014 to identify tools assessing PA and/or HE policy and practice environments in settings that care for youth (≤18years). RESULTS: Sixty-five audit tools were identified of which 53 individual tools met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three tools assessed both the PA and HE domains, 6 assessed the PA domain and 14 assessed the HE domain solely. The majority of the tools were self-assessment tools (n=40), and were developed to assess the PA and/or HE environment in school settings (n=33), childcare (n=12), and after school programs (n=4). Four tools assessed the community at-large and had sections for assessing preschool, school and/or afterschool settings within the tool. The majority of audit tools lacked validity and/or reliability data (n=42). Inter-rater reliability and construct validity were the most frequently reported reliability (n=7) and validity types (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Limited attention has been given to establishing the reliability and validity of audit tools for settings that care for youth. Future efforts should be directed towards establishing a strong measurement foundation for these important environmental audit tools. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in evaluating the physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE) policy and practice environment characteristics in settings frequented by youth (≤18years). OBJECTIVE: This review evaluates the measurement properties of audit tools designed to assess PA and HE policy and practice environment characteristics in settings that care for youth (e.g., childcare, school, afterschool, summer camp). METHOD: Three electronic databases, reference lists, educational department and national health organizations' web pages were searched between January 1980 and February 2014 to identify tools assessing PA and/or HE policy and practice environments in settings that care for youth (≤18years). RESULTS: Sixty-five audit tools were identified of which 53 individual tools met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three tools assessed both the PA and HE domains, 6 assessed the PA domain and 14 assessed the HE domain solely. The majority of the tools were self-assessment tools (n=40), and were developed to assess the PA and/or HE environment in school settings (n=33), childcare (n=12), and after school programs (n=4). Four tools assessed the community at-large and had sections for assessing preschool, school and/or afterschool settings within the tool. The majority of audit tools lacked validity and/or reliability data (n=42). Inter-rater reliability and construct validity were the most frequently reported reliability (n=7) and validity types (n=5). CONCLUSIONS: Limited attention has been given to establishing the reliability and validity of audit tools for settings that care for youth. Future efforts should be directed towards establishing a strong measurement foundation for these important environmental audit tools. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Mai J M Chinapaw; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Willem van Mechelen; Caroline B Terwee Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Leslie A Lytle; Martha Y Kubik; Cheryl Perry; Mary Story; Amanda S Birnbaum; David M Murray Journal: Prev Med Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Julie K Bower; Derek P Hales; Deborah F Tate; Daniela A Rubin; Sara E Benjamin; Dianne S Ward Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Hannah G Lane; Hannah G Calvert; Rachel Deitch; Ryan Harris; Oyinlola T Babatunde; Lindsey Turner; Erin R Hager; Stephanie Jilcott Pitts Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-09-06 Impact factor: 4.931
Authors: Jessica S Gubbels; Ester Fc Sleddens; Lieke Ch Raaijmakers; Judith M Gies; Stef Pj Kremers Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 4.022