Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit. (19th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Horacek, Tanya M.; Yildirim, Elif Dede; Seidman, Dean; Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol; Colby, Sarah; White, Adrienne A.; Shelnutt, Karla P.; Olfert, Melissa D.; Mathews, Anne E.; Riggsbee, Kristin; Franzen-Castle, Lisa; Morrell, Jesse Stabile; Kattelmann, Kendra
• Other Names: Strogatz David Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: Journal of environmental and public health. Volume 2019(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-05-19
• Subjects: Environmental health -- Periodicals; Occupational diseases -- Periodicals; Public health -- Periodicals; 613.105
• DOI: 10.1155/2019/5819752
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1687-9805

Abstract

Abstract : This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool—Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach's alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0 . 72 ) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0 . 837 ). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20–42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n = 41 )r = 0.498, p < 0.001 ) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n = 29 ) for both features (r = 0.417, p = 0.024 ) and amenities (r = 0.612, p < 0.001 ), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.