School Physical Activity Policy Assessment

Lounsbery, Monica; McKenzie, Thomas L.; Morrow, James R.; Holt, Kathryn A.; Budnar, Ronald G.

doi:10.1123/jpah.10.4.496

Cited by 58 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Survey items were selected from the School Physical Activity Policy Assessment (S-PAPA) tool, 12 and some adaptations were made. The survey was kept brief to maximize response rate, and the items hypothesized to have the highest reach and impact on physical activity, based on findings from previous studies, were retained.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic Disparities in Elementary School Practices and Children's Physical Activity during School

Carlson¹,

Mignano²,

Norman³

et al. 2014

Am J Health Promot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To examine school socioeconomic status (SES) in relation to school physical activity-related practices and children’s physical activity. Design A cross-sectional design was used for this study. Setting The study was set in 97 elementary schools (63% response rate) in two U.S. regions. Subjects Of the children taking part in this study, 172 were aged 10.2 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.5) years; 51.7% were girls, and 69.2% were White non-Hispanic. Measures School physical education (PE) teachers or principals responded to 15 yes/no questions on school physical activity-supportive practices. School SES (low, moderate, high) was derived from the percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. Children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) during school was measured with accelerometers. Analysis School level analyses involved linear and logistic regression; children’s MVPA analyses used mixed effects regression. Results Low-SES schools were less likely to have a PE teacher and had fewer physical activity-supportive PE practices than did high-SES schools (p < .05). Practices related to active travel to school were more favorable at low-SES schools (p < .05). Children attending high-SES schools had 4.4 minutes per day more of MVPA during school than did those at low-SES schools, but this finding was not statistically significant (p = .124). Conclusion These findings suggest that more low- and moderate-SES elementary schools need PE teachers in order to reduce disparities in school physical activity opportunities and that PE time needs to be supplemented by classroom teachers or other staff to meet guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic Disparities in Elementary School Practices and Children's Physical Activity during School

Carlson¹,

Mignano²,

Norman³

et al. 2014

Am J Health Promot

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of an item coded for duration was: “How long are the typical physical education class periods (counting time for changing/showering)?”13 An example of an item coded for frequency was: “How many physical education classes per week do students receive? (Provide the average)”14 An example of an item coded for scheduling was: “What type of class schedule do your students follow?”17 For the most part, as mentioned earlier these measures were not conceptualized specifically as implementation outcome measures in the various survey instruments assessed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Implementation Outcome Measures of School‐Based Physical Activity Interventions

Shah

Allison

Schoueri-Mychasiw

et al. 2017

Journal of School Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDMeasuring the implementation of school‐based physical activity (PA) interventions is an important prerequisite in assessing their impact. Prior to conducting a study to assess the implementation of the daily physical activity (DPA) policy in Ontario, Canada, a literature review was conducted to identify existing survey instruments to measure 5 implementation outcomes: adoption, fidelity, implementation cost, reach, and sustainability.METHODSA search for survey instruments to assess these implementation outcomes at the teacher and school administrator levels was conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, as well as the gray literature. Each survey instrument was coded as assessing 1 of the 5 implementation outcomes if it included at least 1 item measuring the construct.RESULTSTwenty‐three survey instruments were identified. None of the instruments were specifically developed to measure the implementation outcomes. Fidelity was the most common implementation outcome measured, followed by adoption. The least common implementation outcome measured was sustainability. Thirty‐five percent of survey instruments assessed were previously tested for validity and 26% were previously tested for reliability.CONCLUSIONSBased on this review, a gap in available instruments to measure implementation outcomes of school‐based PA programs was identified. An adapted theoretical framework, presented here, has potential application in future implementation studies.

show abstract

“…In this review, apart from the study by Lounsbery et al, 83 which only reported on content validity for the S-PAPA tool, all the other studies examined additional validity types such as construct or criterion validity to establish stronger measurement proprieties of the newly developed tools. When validity was tested, construct validity was the most often reported validity type, which is an essential measurement property to establish if audit tools are expected to be used to evaluate the environmental characteristics in relation to health outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inter-rater reliability (Table 2) was the most commonly tested type of reliability (n=7) 13, 21, 23-26 followed by test-retest (n=3), 21, 82, 83 and internal consistency (n=1). 25 For reliability assessment, studies reported Pearson correlation, Cronbach's α, kappa coefficient, percent agreement and/or interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Construct validity (table 2) was the most reported type of validity (n=5), 13, 21, 24, 25, 82 followed by face and/or content validity (n=3), 13, 21, 83 criterion validity (n=2) 21, 84 and convergent validity (n=1). 26 Construct validity comparisons were made: against national expert review, 21 comparison to environmental characteristic scores among sites using groups expected to differ due to known characteristics, 24, 25 and objective measures of child-level physical activity such as pedometers 13 and direct observation.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical activity and healthy eating environmental audit tools in youth care settings: A systematic review

Ajja

Beets

Chandler

et al. 2015

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (≤18 years). Objective This review evaluates the measurement properties of audit tools designed to assess PA and HE policy and practice environmental 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 (≤18 years). 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 PA domain and 14 assessed 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 afterschool 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.

show abstract

School Physical Activity Policy Assessment

Abstract: Test-retest results suggest S-PAPA items are reliable and useful in assessing PA policies in elementary schools.

Cited by 58 publications

References 12 publications

Socioeconomic Disparities in Elementary School Practices and Children's Physical Activity during School

Socioeconomic Disparities in Elementary School Practices and Children's Physical Activity during School

A Review of Implementation Outcome Measures of School‐Based Physical Activity Interventions

Physical activity and healthy eating environmental audit tools in youth care settings: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About