View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation and Reliability

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation and Reliability
Language: English
Authors: Fairclough, Stuart J., Hilland, Toni A., Vinson, Don, Stratton, Gareth
Source: Environment and Behavior. Jan 2012 44(1):50-67.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Physical Education, Predictive Validity, Correlation, Physical Environment, Researchers, Secondary Schools, Children, Adolescents, Reliability, Educational Environment, Measurement, Data Analysis
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916510388495
ISSN: 0013-9165
Abstract: The study purpose was to assess preliminary validity and reliability of the Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI), which was designed to audit physical education (PE) and school sport spaces and resources. PE teachers from eight English secondary schools completed the PESSEI. Criterion validity was assessed by researcher observations of schools' spaces and facilities. To measure test-retest reliability, teachers completed the PESSEI twice within 14 days. Pearson's correlations for teacher and researcher observations ranged from r = 0.8 through 0.99. Test-retest reliability was also very high (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.93 through 1.0). Limits of agreement were acceptable for all variables with the exception of indoor spatial area. Results support the potential of the PESSEI as an objective measure of the school physical environment. To confirm these initial findings, further validity and reliability analyses are required in differing school contexts. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 32
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ951881
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFT1EDQ9Cfp_K0wlYvo4UK5AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPjJzLrZPPvGgReBJwIBEICBmsNytkCyNkSLZ9hdYZfl0EOIPMx8p7toI4tqFmhYOj1FBpZPfW9HhL_U8Li2ZUFC1T1maDm3oNpmVGIcPB2GWsThPgZknP9teARC4AIAsVDuODTxG-Ysh_P7zcVM46KvI6W09UOblRVjjQc0gv1fOF5QB1NlbzdAWHVzpDeW1QJvl-r1tYwy3sg6_7h2r4qdqpft9BCNak9PNYc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0070213084;ebh01jan.12;2012Jan10.13:32;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0070213084-1">The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation and Reliability </title> <p>EABspeabEnvironment and Behavior0013-91651552-390XSAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA10.1177/001391651038849510.1177_0013916510388495ArticlesThe Physical Education and School Sport Environment InventoryPreliminary Validation and ReliabilityFaircloughStuart J.1HillandToni A.1VinsonDon2StrattonGareth11Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK2University of Gloucestershire, Gloucestershire, UKStuart J. Fairclough, Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University, IM Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BD, UK Email: s.j.fairclough@ljmu.ac.ukStuart J. Fairclough, PhD, is a reader in physical activity education with the Research into Exercise, Activity, and Children’s Health (REACH) Group at Liverpool John Moores University. His research focuses on children’s health-enhancing physical activity with particular reference to the school environment.Toni A. Hilland, PhD, is a research associate with the REACH Group at Liverpool John Moores University. Her research work focuses on the role of school physical education in promoting physical activity in youth.Don Vinson, PhD, is a senior lecturer in sport and health development in the Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care at the University of Gloucestershire. His research interests include measurement and scale development in relation to health promotionGareth Stratton, PhD, is a professor of pediatric exercise science and chair of the REACH group at Liverpool John Moores University. His research examines all aspects of pediatric health promotion and disease prevention through physical activity, with a particualr interest in intervention approaches.120124415067© SAGE Publications 20122012SAGE PublicationsThe study purpose was to assess preliminary validity and reliability of the Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI), which was designed to audit physical education (PE) and school sport spaces and resources. PE teachers from eight English secondary schools completed the PESSEI. Criterion validity was assessed by researcher observations of schools’ spaces and facilities. To measure test–retest reliability, teachers completed the PESSEI twice within 14 days. Pearson’s correlations for teacher and researcher observations ranged from r = .8 through .99. Test–retest reliability was also very high (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.93 through 1.0). Limits of agreement were acceptable for all variables with the exception of indoor spatial area. Results support the potential of the PESSEI as an objective measure of the school physical environment. To confirm these initial findings, further validity and reliability analyses are required in differing school contexts.schoolphysical environmentvalidationscale developmentIntroductionThe correlates of young people’s physical activity are commonly classified as demographic, within-individual, behavioral, sociocultural, policy, and environmental (Bauman, Sallis, & Owen, 2002). Of these, environmental variables are of interest as ecological approaches to physical activity promotion acknowledge the interaction between an individuals’ behavior and multiple levels of their environment (Sallis & Owen, 1997). The strongest associations between youth physical activity and environmental correlates relate to time spent outdoors and access to physical activity spaces, equipment, facilities, and programs (Davison & Lawson, 2006; Sallis, Bauman, & Pratt, 1998; Wechsler, Devereaux, Davis, & Collins, 2000). The physical environment is represented by objects with which individuals interact, and the more opportunities provided by the environment for physical activity the more likely that youth will participate (Fein, Plotnikoff, Wild, & Spence, 2005). The physical environment of the school may be influential for physical activity (Davison & Lawson, 2006) as school is mandatory for the majority of youth who spend around 40% of their waking hours there (Fox, Cooper, & McKenna, 2004). Research investigating the association between school physical environments and physical activity have generally reported positive and significant correlations (Cradock, Melly, Allen, Morris, & Gortmaker, 2007; Fein, Plotnikoff, Wild, & Spence, 2004; Sallis et al., 2001). Findings from these studies support the notion that physical activity at school is mainly accumulated in open spaces (e.g., gymnasia, fields, playgrounds, etc.) during physical education (PE) classes, extracurricular physical activity, and recess (Dale, Corbin, & Dale, 2000). As PE is a mandated curriculum subject in many countries, provision for physical activity is expected, usually in the form of facilities and spaces for curricular and extracurricular PE and school sport, noncurricular sport, and informal physical activity (e.g., recess play; Dwyer et al., 2006). Thus, the school physical environment is seen as important for the promotion of physical activity behaviors (Centers for Disease Control, 1997; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008; Department for Education and Skills/Department of Health, 2005), with facilities and resources cited as key criteria for schools with environments supportive of physical activity (Young et al., 2007).Measurement of the school physical environment has been previously based on students’ perceptions and objective observational measures. Canadian high school students’ perceptions of school physical activity spaces and equipment were assessed using an audit tool and compared to researcher observed ratings of the same physical environments (Fein et al., 2005). The authors found little difference between students’ perception scores and objective observation scores (Fein et al., 2005). The Questionnaire Assessing School Physical Activity Environment (Q-SPACE) questionnaire was designed to assess middle school students’ perceptions of the school physical and social environments (Robertson-Wilson, Levesque, & Holden, 2007). This measure demonstrated acceptable internal reliability and test–retest reliability (r =.72 through .86; Robertson-Wilson et al., 2007). Middle school physical environments have also been assessed objectively. Sallis et al. (2001) described how area type, area size, and permanent improvements (e.g., basketball courts) were observed, coded, and quantified by researchers during school site visits. Furthermore, school campus areas have been measured using site visits and maps, land-use parcel data, ortho-photos, and architectural plans (Cradock et al., 2007). More recently, a school environment audit tool was developed in the United Kingdom with a multicomponent structure, assessing a wide range of environmental components, such as aesthetics and walking provision outside the school as well as facilities for sport and structured physical activity (Jones et al., 2010). Depending on the nature of the research question posed, subjective and objective methods of measuring the school physical environment may be effective, but they also have inherent strengths and limitations (Brownson, Hoehner, Day, Forsyth, & Sallis, 2009). Although survey tools are cost-effective, time-efficient, and can reach large numbers of participants, their lack of objectivity may inhibit data validity. Conversely, objective audit tools typically use observation to measure the presence and qualities of physical environment features hypothesized to influence physical activity. Direct observation is time consuming and a period of training is usually required before observers attain a criterion level of accuracy and reliability. Geographic information systems (GIS)-based measures are measures of the physical environment derived primarily from existing data sources that have some spatial reference, such as address or census boundary identification. GIS methods can also provide an objective means of assessing schools’ environments; however, these approaches can also be time consuming and costly, and require prior training and technical expertise (Brownson et al., 2009). It has been proposed that different domains of physical activity (e.g., transportation, leisure, school, etc.) are affected by different environmental attributes (Lee & Moudon, 2006). Physical activity participation through school PE and sport share similar characteristics with leisure physical activity, which is most affected by access to and characteristics of physical activity and sports facilities (Brownson et al., 2009). Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that young people’s physical activity participation through PE and school sport may also be influenced by available spaces and facilities for these activities.To our knowledge, an objective assessment tool that exclusively and specifically assesses the school PE and sport environment, and that is low cost, has low participant burden, and requires minimal training does not exist. Such an instrument would add to the broader body of literature investigating the impact of school environments on youth physical activity behaviors. Moreover, an instrument of this type could be utilized by researchers and practitioners to more clearly understand the influence of the school PE and sport environment and youth physical activity participation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a measure of the PE and school sport physical environment (i.e., indoor and outdoor school spaces and facilities that might support physical activity), which was termed the Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI).MethodParticipantsPE teachers from eight English secondary schools catering for students aged 11 to 16 years participated in the study. The teachers were all educated to at least bachelor’s degree level with four of them also possessing postgraduate qualifications. On average, the teachers had been fully qualified PE specialists for 8.0 ± 4.3 years (range = 3-15 years) and all had worked in the participating schools for a minimum of 3 years. The schools were coeducational state schools of differing sizes and were situated in locations of varying socioeconomic status (SES) in northern England. Each school implemented the mandatory National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE; Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1999), which provides a framework of physical activity-based learning. The NCPE is structured around six areas of activity (i.e., athletic activities, dance, games, gymnastic activities, outdoor and adventurous activities, and swimming), which schools deliver in differing combinations depending on available facilities, staff expertise, and time of year. The schools were purposively selected based on previous interest and/or participation in PE and physical activity-related research projects undertaken by the authors. As an incentive to participate, all schools that took part were entered into a prize draw for £150 of vouchers to purchase physical activity and sports equipment for use in school. The study received ethical approval from the local university ethics committee.InstrumentThe school physical environment is defined as “all school physical spaces and equipment related to physical activity” (Fein et al., 2005, p. 182). Thus, the principal focus of the PESSEI was on PE and school sport spaces and facilities, which were classified as being either indoor or outdoor. Previous measures of the school physical environment (Cradock et al., 2007; Fein et al., 2005; Sallis et al., 2001) were studied to inform the development of the PESSEI, which was a paper-and-pencil audit designed to be completed by PE teachers. The PESSEI contains 25 closed questions organized into three distinct sections and takes approximately 15 min to complete. The content of the PESSEI is briefly summarized below.Section 1Teachers were required to provide school demographic and context-specific data, such as school type, location, number of enrolled students, and percentage of students eligible for free school meals, which were used as a proxy measure of SES. The latter information was easily accessible from administrative staff in each school.Section 2Indoor spacesA list of possible indoor PE and school sport spaces was provided under headings of specialist spaces, gyms and halls, pools, indoor athletics, and other. Teachers were asked to state how many of these spaces were available for student use during curricular and/or noncurricular time (which included supervised and unsupervised activities). For gyms, halls, and pools, teachers were also asked to provide information about the approximate size of the spaces. As spatial area of school recreation (Sallis et al., 2001) and play (Cradock et al., 2007) facilities has been shown to influence youth physical activity, we felt it was important to assess the dimensions of the PE and school sport spaces. Asking the teachers to physically measure the dimensions of the spaces would have been extremely time consuming for them and most likely would have drastically reduced response rates. To avoid this situation and to further reduce the amount of time teachers would need to devote to obtaining the spatial information, an alternative approach was taken that required teachers to state the size of their indoor spaces in more general terms that related to their professional use of them. For gyms and halls, the approximate size was based on the number of badminton courts that the total space was equivalent to, as gym and hall design in England is traditionally based on the number of badminton courts that can be accommodated inside. Thus, standard dimensions from which to approximate the area of these spaces are available in Table 1 (Sport England, 2000). Moreover, teachers were asked to state the length of their swimming pools and how many lanes each had, and standard dimensions for swimming pool design were used to approximate the total pool area (see online appendix for details; Institute of Baths and Recreation Management, 1990). In English schools, specialist areas such as squash courts, fitness rooms, dance studios, and indoor athletics facilities are relatively less common than more traditional spaces. So as to maintain the expeditious nature of the PESSEI, the most recent recommended dimensions for these areas when situated in schools were used to estimate their size (see appendix for details; Sport England, 2002, 2007). Where schools had other indoor spaces not listed in the PESSEI, teachers were asked to approximate the space dimensions.Table 1.Standard Indoor Space Dimensions Based on Possible Number of Badminton CourtsNo. courtsLength (m)Width (m)Total area (m2)1181018021817306327184864331859463327891837331,221951271,3771254331,782Source: Sport England, 2000.Outdoor spacesOutdoor spaces were classified as synthetic surfaces, grass surfaces, multiuse games surfaces, “all-weather” cinder/clay surfaces, and outdoor athletics facilities. Teachers were asked to indicate whether these spaces were available for student use during curricular and/or noncurricular time. Where schools had other outdoor spaces not listed in the PESSEI, teachers were asked to indicate what these were.Off-site spacesOut of necessity, some schools use PE and school sport spaces located outside of their school grounds. To recognize this, teachers were asked to include indoor and outdoor off-site spaces on the PESSEI only if the total traveling time in both directions equated to less than 25% of timetabled PE lesson time (or session time if used for noncurricular activities). It was felt that if traveling time impacted on more than 25% of regular delivery time then the benefits of using those spaces may have been outweighed by the cost of reduced time for actual activity, which can be predictive of physical activity levels (Ridgers, Stratton, Fairclough, & Twisk, 2007). For this reason, teachers were asked not to include off-site spaces that required excessive travel time.Section 3Permanent physical resourcesPermanent physical resources are positively associated with youth physical activity at school (Sallis et al., 2001). They were defined as facilities or equipment that was fixed and therefore not portable (e.g., basketball court markings, soccer goals, etc.). From a list of 21 permanent resources, teachers were asked to quantify how many were available for use within curricular and/or noncurricular time. Additional space was provided for teachers to insert any other resources not included in the list.ProceduresInitial piloting was conducted with a group of experts in PE and school sport, comprising of two university PE lecturers, two school PE teachers, and two PE heads of department. The group was asked to provide feedback relating to the content-related validity of the PESSEI (i.e., structure, presentation, language, content, relevance, etc.). On the basis of the experts’ comments, the content-related validity was believed to be sound, though some minor grammatical amendments were made to increase the clarity of the instructions. Following these amendments, one named PE teacher per school received a packet containing instructions and the PESSEI. These teachers were asked to complete the audit and return it by a specified date. Also within the packet was an aerial photograph of each school’s site obtained from the Google™ Earth Pro (GEP) software (version 4.2.0205.5730). Teachers were asked to clearly mark on the photograph the boundaries of the outdoor areas that they had indicated on the PESSEI as being available for PE and school sport. Should schools use off-site outdoor spaces that were not captured on the aerial photograph; teachers were prompted to email the research team with the street name and postcode of the off-site location. Once this information was received, a revised GEP aerial image would be sent to the teachers to indicate their outdoor space boundaries. Teachers were requested to return the photographs with completed inventories for subsequent estimation of outdoor spatial areas. Using the boundaries indicated by the teachers on the GEP aerial photographs, an aerial view of the same area was located using the GEP application. These outdoor spatial areas were calculated using the GEP polygon tool to draw polygons around the equivalent areas (Figure 1). This application has been used previously in geocoding studies (Lovasi et al., 2007) and provides a simple, cost-effective means of quantifying spatial areas. The area of each of the polygons was calculated by the software and then recorded and summed for each school, to provide an estimate of total outdoor spatial area.Figure 1.Example Google Earth Pro aerial image with outdoor PE and school sport space boundaries indicatedOnce this process was complete, teachers were contacted to arrange a date and time for the second author to visit the schools to objectively observe and record details of the PE and school sport spaces and facilities. As well as being centrally involved in the PESSEI design, the second author had bachelor’s and master’s degrees in PE, and prior experience of conducting research in school sport environments. During these visits, the second author undertook observations and completed relevant aspects of the PESSEI to assess criterion validity. At the same time, teachers were also given a second PESSEI to complete and return to evaluate the tool’s test–retest reliability. Teachers completed both the audits within a 14-day period.Data AnalysisPESSEI data were collated and descriptive statistics (M ± SD) were calculated. To establish criterion validity, teacher-reported and researcher-observed data were analyzed using paired t tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficients, to assess bias and association, respectively (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998). Test–retest reliability was assessed by paired t tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Unlike Pearson’s correlations, ICCs do not overestimate the true correlation when used with small samples, as was the case in this study (Hopkins, 2000). Ninety-five percent limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated to assess agreement between measurement occasions (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998). SPSS v14 was used for all analyses.ResultsPE and School Sport Environment CharacteristicsTeachers from each school returned the completed PESSEI (100% completion rate). Descriptive data are presented in Table 2. The number of enrolled students in each school was 940.4 ± 356.0 and ranged from 1,650 through 609. A total of 13% of students were eligible for free school meals, which was similar to the average in English schools (Department for Children Schools and Families, 2007). Schools had around three indoor and three outdoor spaces measuring 1077.7 ± 372.1 m2 and 59465.0 ± 53542.4 m2, respectively. In relation to equipment and facilities, 44.0 ± 18.6 permanent resources were reported.Table 2.Descriptive Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI) DataPESSEI variablesM ± SDSchool characteristics No. enrolled940.4 ± 356.0 Eligible for free school meals (%)13.1 ± 7.6Number of spaces Indoor spaces3.3 ± 1.0 Outdoor spaces2.8 ± 0.7 Total spaces6.0 ± 1.4Spatial area Indoor area (m2)1077.7 ± 372.1 Indoor area • student (m2)1.2 ± 0.3 Outdoor area (m2)59465.0 ± 53542.4 Outdoor area • student (m2)56.8 ± 30.8 Total area (m2)60542.7 ± 53804.1 Total area • student (m2)58.0 ± 30.7Resources Permanent resources44.0 ± 18.6 Permanent resources • student0.05 ± 0.01Note. The “·” symbol is used to denote “per” when describing relative dimensions.PESSEI ValidityPaired t tests revealed no significant differences in teacher-reported and researcher-observed variables (Table 3). Moreover, the Pearson’s correlation coefficients ranged from .80 through .97, indicating strong agreement between the values reported by the teachers and the researcher, respectively. The LOA were interpreted according to the appropriate “analytical goals” of the study (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998), where reliability was judged on the narrowness of these limits related to the practical setting. The LOA were acceptably narrow for all measures, with the exception of indoor area (−193.76 m2, 253.38 m2).Table 3.Differences, Correlations, and Limits of Agreement Between Teacher and Researcher ResponsesPaired t testPearson’s correlationMean difference between teacher and researcher responsesdftprp95% limits Of agreementNo. of indoor spaces0.1371.0.35.94.001(−0.56, 0.81)No. of outdoor spaces0.257−1.53.17.80.017(−1.15, 0.65)Total no. of spaces0.137−1.0.35.97.0001(−0.81, 0.56)Indoor area (m2)29.870.74.48.96.0001(−193.76, 253.38)No. of permanent resources1.37−1.39.21.99.0001(−6.28, 7.28)PESSEI ReliabilityTo assess the accurate repeatability of the PESSEI, teachers completed the audit twice within 14 days. No significant differences were observed between each pair of variables. ICCs supported the paired t tests by revealing very high levels of agreement between measurement occasions (ICC = 0.93 through 1.0). LOA were acceptable for all measures, except for indoor area (−234.38 m2, 305.64 m2; see Table 4).Table 4.Test–Retest Differences, Correlations, and Limits of Agreement Between Teacher ResponsesPaired t testIntraclass correlationdftPICCp95% limits Of agreementSchool characteristics No. of enrolled students0.070.01.01.0—— Eligible for free school meals (%)0.0171.00.351.0.0001(−0.05, 0.08)Number of spaces Indoor spaces0.1371.00.350.97.0001(−0.56, 0.81) Outdoor spaces0.137−1.00.350.93.0001(−0.81, 0.56) Total spaces0.070.01.00.95.0001(−1.04, 1.04)Spatial area Indoor area (m2)35.670.730.490.96.0001(−234.38, 305.64)Resources No. permanent resources0.757−0.570.580.99.0001(−7.98, 6.48)Note: No intraclass correlation coefficients p value computed for number of enrolled students as mean values were identical on both measurement occasions.DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to assess the preliminary validity and reliability of the PESSEI, which was designed to be a concise and expedient measure of the PE and school sport physical environment. Criterion validity was established by the strong correlations (r = .8 through .99) and generally acceptable LOA between values obtained from teachers’ completed PESSEI audits and those from the researcher observations. These data suggest that the teachers and the researcher were able to accurately comprehend and complete the questions in the same way. The highest correlations related to indoor spaces (r = .94 through .97) and permanent resources (r = .99). The correlation coefficient for the number of outdoor spaces was relatively lower (r = .8), possibly because the teachers and the researchers did not include the same outdoor spaces in their totals. Indoor spaces like sports halls and swimming pools are purpose-built buildings that would be difficult to overlook when completing the PESSEI. Conversely, some outdoor spaces like playgrounds, smaller hard court, and grassed areas that are not always as prominent as other areas (i.e., tennis courts, football fields, etc.) may not have been included by all respondents.Fourteen day test–retest ICCs ranged from 0.93 through 1.0, illustrating that the responses were very stable over this period of time. This finding was expected as it would not be feasible for new indoor spaces to be built or new outdoor ones to be created in a 2-week time frame. Although the PESSEI was not retested again, it is anticipated that these correlations would remain high over longer time intervals, as major building works to construct new spaces or adapt existing ones usually depend on substantial capital investment, and therefore occur relatively infrequently.A novel aspect of the PESSEI was the use of the GEP software to estimate the outdoor spatial areas of the schools. Unlike more complex GIS-based measures that require a requisite level of technical and theoretical knowledge, the GEP application is straightforward to use and no previous training or knowledge is required. Although GEP does not possess as much analytical power as GIS software, it does allow spatial areas to be estimated, and so it was appropriate for use to complement the teachers’ PESSEI responses. The process of estimating outdoor spatial areas was dependent on the teachers providing accurate outdoor space boundaries on their schools’ aerial photographs. It was expected that the PE teachers would be able to competently indicate these boundaries as they regularly worked within them while delivering PE lessons. A potential limitation of using this method is that the GEP aerial images are not regularly updated in all locations and so may not always be current. There could be instances where a school’s GEP aerial image is out of date and the actual physical environment has changed (e.g., new school buildings have replaced previous outdoor spaces, outdoor spaces boundaries have changed, etc.). To address this issue, teachers were asked to contact the research team if the aerial photograph no longer accurately represented their school grounds. Should this eventuality arise, researchers could visit schools and manually measure the outdoor spaces with measuring wheels. Although this method would be more time consuming than using the GEP software, it would still provide accurate data and would be required infrequently.Estimating indoor spatial area based on standard dimensions for sports halls, gyms, and swimming pools provided a quick and convenient method of estimating indoor areas that was specific to relative sizes of the facilities in question. One limitation to this approach was that such size-specific standardized dimensions were not available for all indoor spaces, notably dance studios and fitness rooms. Spatial area for these spaces was estimated based on guidance for their design in schools (Sport England, 2007). It is acknowledged that some schools may have had dance studios and/or fitness rooms with dimensions different to those recommended in the guidelines. However, whereas all of the schools had sports halls and gyms, fewer (25%) had dance studios and fitness rooms. In the United Kingdom, these specialist indoor spaces are less common than multiuse spaces like sports halls, thus it was felt that estimating dance studio and fitness room size was justified from two perspectives: (a) maintaining low participant burden on the teachers (i.e., avoiding a school visit to manually measure the spaces, or asking the teachers to do it) and (b) not only are dance studios and fitness rooms relatively less common in schools compared to multiuse spaces, but they also tend to be smaller than other these spaces. Therefore, the relative contribution of dance and fitness rooms to total spatial area is less than that of sports halls, gyms, and swimming pools, for example, and so it was hypothesized that any discrepancies between the actual and the estimated sizes most likely would not significantly influence the calculation of total spatial area. However, the LOA for indoor area were relatively wide for validity and reliability data perhaps because of estimating the area of dance and fitness spaces based on recommended dimensions (Sport England, 2007). Furthermore, variation in indoor area may have arisen from the teachers’ and researcher’s interpretation of the indoor spaces in relation to the equivalent number of badminton courts, or number of swimming pool lanes, which may have deviated somewhat between test occasions.Previous instruments exist which also include a measure of the school environment. The protocol described by Sallis et al. (2001) focused on school recreation facilities but relied exclusively on researcher observations that are likely time consuming, potentially expensive, and may not be suitable for practitioners to use. Other tools have used student perceptions (Fein et al., 2005; Robertson-Wilson et al., 2007) that may lack objectivity, whereas alternative audits tend to be time consuming to complete (e.g., 25-30 min) and focus on multiple components of the school environment (Barnett, O’Loughlin, Gauvin, Paradis, & Hanley, 2006; Young, et al., 2007). Although these measures are clearly fit for the purpose they were developed for, they do not specially focus on the PE and the school sport physical activity, which was context of interest for the PESSEI.The sample of eight schools was small, but it should be highlighted that all the correlations were statistically significant (p = .017 through .0001). In relation to Pearson’s correlation coefficients, it is well established that the r values can be small but still be statistically significant when the sample size is large (Field, 2000). The fact that highly significant correlations were observed with a small sample size lends support to the PESSEI as a promising measure of the school physical environment. Depending on the nature of the content, piloting of some survey measures may not require very large sample sizes, as evidenced by a recent study in England, which piloted an audit tool in two schools (Jones et al., 2010) and an investigation in Montreal where a questionnaire to assess physical activity opportunities was piloted with just 7 schools before subsequently being administered in 323 schools (Barnett et al., 2006). Although all correlations were statistically significant (p = .017 through .0001), the results relating to the indoor area should be interpreted with a degree of caution because of the relatively wide LOA. Further work is needed to refine the indoor spatial area section of the PESSEI, to strengthen inter- and intraindividual agreement. A further limitation of the PESSEI is that it was developed for use in the English school context. As calculation of indoor spatial areas is dependent on the use of standardized dimensions specific to English schools, the utility of these components of the PESSEI may be limited in other countries. Cleary, an adaptation of the method for estimating indoor spatial areas is needed for the instrument to be adapted for use beyond England. However, if teachers or researchers wished to calculate outdoor spatial areas, or quantify the number and type of spaces, and permanent resources without estimating indoor spatial areas, the PESSEI could still be used outside of England with just minor adaptations to some of the terminology used (e.g., athletics vs. track and field).The PESSEI is a short, objective audit designed specifically to measure schools’ PE and school sport physical environments. Prior to completion by PE teachers, a group of experts confirmed the tool’s content validity. Preliminary evidence suggests that the PESSEI possesses acceptable criterion validity and test–retest reliability. Further testing of the measure’s validity is required with more schools, including primary school environments that tend to have fewer and smaller spaces than secondary schools, and far fewer specialist physical educators. The intended application of the measure is to enable teachers to quantify their PE and school sport environments to assist with organization of resources when developing plans or applications for improved facilities. Researchers can use the PESSEI to stratify schools according to their PE and school sport environment provision, and to investigate associations between PESSEI variables and student physical activity behaviors, which will add to the emerging body of knowledge investigating environmental correlates of youth physical activity.The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.ReferencesAtkinsonG.NevillA. M. (1998). Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Medicine, 4, 217-238.BarnettT. A.O’LoughlinJ.GauvinL.ParadisG.HanleyJ. (2006). Opportunities for student physical activity in elementary schools: A cross-sectional survey of frequency and correlates. Health Education & Behavior, 33, 215-232.BaumanA.SallisJ. F.OwenN. (2002). Environmental and policy measurement in physical activity research. In WelkG. J. (Ed.), Physical activity assessments for health-related research (pp. 241-252). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.BrownsonR. C.HoehnerC. M.DayK.ForsythA.SallisJ. F. (2009). Measuring the built environment for physical activity: State of the science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36, S99-S129.Centers for Disease Control. (1997). Guidelines for school and community programes to promote lifelong physical activity among young people. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 46(RR-6), 1-35.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, January28). Healthy youth! Coordinated school health program. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from <ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/CSHP/CradockA">http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/CSHP/CradockA</ulink>. L.MellyS. J.AllenJ. G.MorrisJ. S.GortmakerS. L. (2007). Characteristics of school campuses and physical activity among youth. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, 106-113.DaleD.CorbinC. B.DaleK. S. (2000). Restricting opportunities to be active during school time: Do children compensate by increasing physical activity levels after school?Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 240-248.DavisonK. K.LawsonC. T. (2006). Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-3-1910.1186/1479-5868-3-19Department for Children Schools and Families. (2007). DCSF: Education and training statistics for the United Kingdom 2007. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from <ulink href="http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000761/index.shtmlDepartment">http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/VOL/v000761/index.shtmlDepartment</ulink> for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (1999). Physical education—The national curriculum for England. London, UK: Author.Department for Education and Skills/Department of Health. (2005). National healthy school status: Guidance for Schools. London, UK: Author.DwyerJ. J. M.AllisonK. R.LeMoineK. N.AdlafE. M.GoodmanJ.FaulknerG. E. J.. (2006). A provincial study of opportunities for school-based physical activity in secondary schools. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 80-86.FeinA. J.PlotnikoffR. C.WildT. C.SpenceJ. C. (2004). Perceived environment and physical activity in youth. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 135-142.FeinA. J.PlotnikoffR. C.WildT. C.SpenceJ. C. (2005). An examination of adolescents’ perceptions of the school physical environment related to physical activity. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 179-195.FieldA. (2000). Discovering statisitics using SPSS for windows. London, UK: Sage.FoxK. R.CooperA.McKennaJ. (2004). The school and promotion of children’s health-enhancing physical activity: Perspectives from the United Kingdom. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 336-355.HopkinsW. G. (2000). A new view of statistics. Summarizing data: Precision of measurement. Retrieved November 15, 2001, from <ulink href="http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.htmlInstitute">http://sportsci.org/resource/stats/index.htmlInstitute</ulink> of Baths and Recreation Management. (1990). Practical leisure centre management (Vol. 2). Melton Mowbray, UK: Author.JonesN. R.JonesA.van SluijsE. M.PanterJ.HarrisonF.GriffinS. J. (2010). School environments and physical activity: The development and testing of an audit tool. Health Place, 16, 776-783.LeeC.MoudonA. V. (2006). Correlates of walking for transportation or recreation purposes. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3, S77-S98.LovasiG. S.WeissJ. C.HoskinsR.WhitselE. A.RiceK.EricksonC. F.. (2007). Comparing a single-stage geocoding method to a multi-stage geocoding method: How much and where do they disagree?International Journal of Health Geographics, 6. doi:10.1186/1476-072X-6-1210.1186/1476-072X-6-12RidgersN. D.StrattonG.FaircloughS. J.TwiskJ. W. R. (2007). Children’s physical activity levels during school recess: A quasi-experimental intervention study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-1184-111910.1186/1479-5868-1184-1119Robertson-WilsonJ.LevesqueL.HoldenR. R. (2007). Develoment of a questionnaire assessing school physical activity environment (Q-SPACE). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 11, 93-107.SallisJ. F.BaumanA.PrattM. (1998). Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 379-397.SallisJ. F.ConwayT. L.ProchaskaJ. J.McKenzieT. L.MarshallS.BrownM. (2001). The association of school environments with youth physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 618-620.SallisJ. F.OwenN. (1997). Ecological models. In GlanzK.Marcus-LewisF.RimerB. K. (Eds.), Health behavior and health education theory, research and practice (pp. 403-424). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Sport England. (2000). Sports halls: Sizes and layouts. Leeds, UK: Author.Sport England. (2002). Design guide: Athletics. Leeds, UK: Author.Sport England. (2007). Designing for sport on school sites. Leeds, UK: Author.WechslerH.DevereauxR.DavisM.CollinsJ. (2000). Using the school environment to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Preventive Medicine, 31, S121-S137.YoungD. R.FeltonG. M.GrieserM.ElderJ. P.JohnsonC.LeeJ.-S.. (2007). Policies and opportunities for physical activity in middle school environments. Journal of School Health, 77, 44-47.</p> <aug> <p>By Stuart J. Fairclough; Toni A. Hilland; Don Vinson and Gareth Stratton</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ951881
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation and Reliability
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fairclough%2C+Stuart+J%2E%22">Fairclough, Stuart J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hilland%2C+Toni+A%2E%22">Hilland, Toni A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vinson%2C+Don%22">Vinson, Don</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stratton%2C+Gareth%22">Stratton, Gareth</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environment+and+Behavior%22"><i>Environment and Behavior</i></searchLink>. Jan 2012 44(1):50-67.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education%22">Physical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictive+Validity%22">Predictive Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Environment%22">Physical Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Researchers%22">Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+Schools%22">Secondary Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reliability%22">Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measurement%22">Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Analysis%22">Data Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0013916510388495
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-9165
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The study purpose was to assess preliminary validity and reliability of the Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory (PESSEI), which was designed to audit physical education (PE) and school sport spaces and resources. PE teachers from eight English secondary schools completed the PESSEI. Criterion validity was assessed by researcher observations of schools' spaces and facilities. To measure test-retest reliability, teachers completed the PESSEI twice within 14 days. Pearson's correlations for teacher and researcher observations ranged from r = 0.8 through 0.99. Test-retest reliability was also very high (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.93 through 1.0). Limits of agreement were acceptable for all variables with the exception of indoor spatial area. Results support the potential of the PESSEI as an objective measure of the school physical environment. To confirm these initial findings, further validity and reliability analyses are required in differing school contexts. (Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 32
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ951881
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ951881
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0013916510388495
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 50
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictive Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Physical Education and School Sport Environment Inventory: Preliminary Validation and Reliability
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fairclough, Stuart J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hilland, Toni A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vinson, Don
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stratton, Gareth
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-9165
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environment and Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1