Development,Reliability,and Validity of an Urban Trail Use Survey

Abstract

Purpose.

To evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the Research on Urban Trail Environments (ROUTES) Trail Use Questionnaire.

Design.

Test-retest reliability was assessed by repeated measures (study 1); validity was assessed by comparing reported trail use to self-reported and objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels (study 2).

Setting.

Study 1: a religious institution situated near a Los Angeles trail. Study 2: 1-mile buffer zones surrounding three urban trails (Chicago, Dallas, and Los Angeles).

Subjects.

Thirty-four adults between 40 and 60 years of age (10 men and 24 women) completed the ROUTES questionnaire twice (study 1). Study 2 participants were 490 adults (48% female and 73% white), mean age 48 years.

Measures.

Trail use for recreation and transportation purposes, time and distance spent on trails, and characteristics of the trail and other trail users. PA was measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and accelerometry.

Analyses.

Pearson correlation coefficients and κ statistics were used for test-retest reliability for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Generalized linear models were used to evaluate hypotheses on PA comparing trail users and nonusers.

Results.

Test-retest statistics were acceptable (κ = .57, r 5 .66). Validity was supported by correlations between indices of trail use with self-reported PA and accelerometry, and significant group differences between trail users and nonusers in PA levels.

Conclusions.

The ROUTES Trail Use Questionnaire demonstrated good reliability and validity.

Keywords

Physical Activity Walking Obesity Trail Use Manuscript format: research Research purpose: instrument development Study design: nonexperimental/quasi-experimental Outcome measure: behavioral Setting: three urban communities Health focus: fitness/physical activity Strategy: built environment Target population: adults Target population circumstances: geographic location

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dunn

Marcus

Kampert

. Comparison of lifestyle and structured interventions to increase physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999;281:327–334.

Hill

Wyatt

Reed

Peters

. Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science. 2003;299:853–855.

Lee

Booth

Reese-Smith

. The Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument: evaluating features, amenities and incivilities of physical activity resources in urban neighborhoods. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2:13, doi:10.1186/1479-5868-2-13.

Reynolds

Wolch

Byrne

. Trail characteristics as correlates of urban trail use. Am J Health Promot. 2007;21:335–345.

Gobster

. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape Urban Plann. 1995;33:401–413.

Lee

Shafer

. The dynamic nature of leisure experience: an application of Affect Control Theory. J Leis Res. 2002;34:290–310.

Lindsey

. Use of urban greenways: insights from Indianapolis. Landscape Urban Plann. 1999;45:145–157.

Lindsey

Maraj

Kuan

. Access, equity and urban greenways: an exploratory investigation. Prof Geogr. 2001;53:332–346.

Troped

Saunders

Pate

. Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail-trail. Prev Med. 2001;32:191–200.

10.

Furuseth

Altman

. Who's on the greenway: socioeconomic, demographic, and locational characteristics of greenway users. Environ Manage. 1991;15:329–336.

11.

Yabes

Shetter

Schneeman

. Urban waterways: changing historical uses and users in a southwestern desert city. Community Des. 1997;39:167–185.

12.

Zacker

, BoureyJ, Punochar

Lagerway

. Evaluation of the Burke-Gillman Trail's Effect on Property Values and Crime. Seattle, Wash: Staff Report, Seattle Engineering Department and Office for Planning; 1987.

13.

Lindsey

, Nguyen

DBL

. Use of greenway trails in Indiana. J Urban Plann Dev. 2004;130:213–217.

14.

Troped

Cromley

Fragala

. Development and reliability and validity testing of an audit tool for trail/path characteristics: the Path Environment Audit Tool (PEAT). J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:s158–s175.

15.

Gallup Company. Gallup Community Trails Survey. Santa Fe, NM: Southwest Planning & Marketing; 2004.

16.

Reed

Ainsworth

Wilson

. Awareness and use of community walking trails. Prev Med. 2004;39:903–908.

17.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. Atlanta, Ga: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002.

18.

Wolch

Byrne

. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area visitor survey—recreational trail use. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/samo/parkmgmt/recreationaltrailusevisitorsurveyjuly2002.htm. Accessed January 23, 2008.

19.

Gordon

Zizzi

Pauline

. Use of a community trail among new and habitual exercisers: a preliminary assessment. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004;1:1–11.

20.

Gobster

. Recreation and leisure research from an active living perspective: taking a second look at urban trail use data. Leis Sci. 2005;27:367–383.

21.

Gobster

. The Illinois Statewide Trail User Study. Springfield, Ill: Rails to Trails Conservancy; 1990.

22.

Sallis

Johnson

Calfas

. Assessing perceived physical environmental variables that may influence physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68:345–351.

23.

Brownson

Housemann

Brown

. Promoting physical activity in rural communities: walking trail access, use, and effects. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:235–241.

24.

Dunton

Spruijt-Metz

Wolch

. Reasons for trail use predict levels of trail-related physical activity. J Phys Act Health. In press.

25.

Owen

Cerin

Leslie

. Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:387–395.

26.

Craig

Marshall

Sjostrom

. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381–1395.

27.

Melanson

Freedson

. Validity of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. (CSA) activity monitor. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:934–940.

28.

Freedson

Melanson

Sirard

. Calibration of the Computer Science and Applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:777–781.

29.

Krawczyk

Gardner

Wang

. Test-retest reliability of a complex human immunodeficiency virus research questionnaire administered by an Audio Computer-assisted Self-interviewing system. Med Care. 2003;41:853–858.

30.

Fleiss

. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 1981.

31.

Landis

Koch

. The measure of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.

32.

United States Census 2000, Available at: http://www.census.gov. Accessed June 11, 2008.

33.

Erdfelder

Faul

Buchner

. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;28:1–11.

34.

Kuczmarski

Flegal

. Criteria for definition of overweight in transition: background and recommendations for the United States. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;72:1074–1081.

35.

Folsom

Jacobs

Jr Caspersen

. Test-retest reliability of the Minnesota Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:505–511.

36.

Evenson

Eyler

Wilcox

. Test-retest reliability of a questionnaire on physical activity and its correlates among women from diverse racial and ethnic groups. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:15–22.