Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

CDC STACKS serves as an archival repository of CDC-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other public health information authored or co-authored by CDC or funded partners. As a repository, CDC STACKS retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i

Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016

Filetype[PDF-305.49 KB]



Details:

  • Alternative Title:
    Prev Chronic Dis
  • Personal Author:
  • 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.
  • Subjects:
  • Source:
  • Pubmed ID:
    27978411
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC5201154
  • Document Type:
  • Volume:
    13
  • Collection(s):
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

Supporting Files

More +

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov