BACKGROUND: To determine how trail characteristics may influence use, reliable and valid audit tools are needed. METHODS: The Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT) was developed with design, amenity, and aesthetics/maintenance items. Two observers independently audited 185 trail segments at 6 Massachusetts facilities. GPS-derived items were used as a "gold standard." Kappa (k) statistics, observed agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer reliability and validity. RESULTS: Fifteen of 16 primary amenity items had k-values ≥ 0.49 ("moderate") and all had observed agreement ≥ 81%. Seven binary design items had k-values ranging from 0.19 to 0.71 and three of 5 ordinal items had ICCs ≥ 0.52. Only two aesthetics/maintenance items (n = 7) had moderate ICCs. Observed agreement between PEAT and GPS items was ≥ 0.77; k-values were ≥ 0.57 for 7 out of 10 comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: PEAT has acceptable reliability for most of its primary items and appears ready for use by researchers and practitioners.
BACKGROUND: To determine how trail characteristics may influence use, reliable and valid audit tools are needed. METHODS: The Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT) was developed with design, amenity, and aesthetics/maintenance items. Two observers independently audited 185 trail segments at 6 Massachusetts facilities. GPS-derived items were used as a "gold standard." Kappa (k) statistics, observed agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess inter-observer reliability and validity. RESULTS: Fifteen of 16 primary amenity items had k-values ≥ 0.49 ("moderate") and all had observed agreement ≥ 81%. Seven binary design items had k-values ranging from 0.19 to 0.71 and three of 5 ordinal items had ICCs ≥ 0.52. Only two aesthetics/maintenance items (n = 7) had moderate ICCs. Observed agreement between PEAT and GPS items was ≥ 0.77; k-values were ≥ 0.57 for 7 out of 10 comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: PEAT has acceptable reliability for most of its primary items and appears ready for use by researchers and practitioners.
Authors: Andrew T Kaczynski; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Nathan A Peters; Caroline G Dunn; Sara Wilcox; Melinda Forthofer Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2018-05-01
Authors: Philip J Troped; Jeffrey S Wilson; Charles E Matthews; Ellen K Cromley; Steven J Melly Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Catalina Medina; Annel Hernández; Maria E Hermosillo-Gallardo; Célida I Gómez Gámez; Eugen Resendiz; Maricruz Morales; Claudia Nieto; Mildred Moreno; Simón Barquera Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Duncan C Meyers; Dawn K Wilson; Kassandra A Kugler; Natalie Colabianchi; Thomas L McKenzie; Barbara E Ainsworth; Julian Reed; Sara C Schmidt Journal: Health Place Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Madeleine E Bird; Geetanjali D Datta; Andraea van Hulst; Yan Kestens; Tracie A Barnett Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 3.295