The purpose of this study was to develop a self-report instrument to measure perceived physical and social environmental factors in the worksite setting that are shown to influence physical activity.
Design.
Initial items were generated from a review of the literature and were sent out for peer and expert panel review. A revised questionnaire was sent to 1250 participants to determine and test the emerging factor structure.
Setting.
The instrument was tested at two worksites in the mid-South.
Participants.
Participants consisted of a random sample of regular full-time employees at the two worksites.
Measures.
Principal axis factoring with a varimax rotation was used to explore the data in the first group of participants. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the fit of the final model in the second group of participants. Measures used included the comparative fit index, parsimony goodness of fit index, root mean square error of approximation, and the root mean square residual.
Results.
The final analysis showed an adequate fit of the data to the hypothesized factor structure (n = 683). The instrument showed good internal consistency, temporal stability, construct reliability, and discriminant validity.
Conclusion.
The Worksite Supportive Environments for Active Living Survey is a reliable and valid tool for investigating perception of the worksite environment related to physical activity.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007.
2.
SallisJFBaumanAPrattM. Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:379–397.
3.
McLeroyKRBibeauDStecklerA. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–377.
4.
SallisJFKraftKLintonLS. How the environment shapes physical activity: a transdisciplinary research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:208.
5.
StokolsDPelletierKRFieldingJE. The ecology of work and health: research and policy directions for the promotion of employee health. Health Educ Q. 1996;23:137–158.
6.
BakerEABrennanLKBrownsonRHousemanRA. Measuring the determinants of physical activity in the community: current and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000;71(suppl):S146–S158.
7.
KingAC. How to promote physical activity in a community: research experiences from the US highlighting different community approaches. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33(suppl):3–12.
8.
KingAC. Community and public health approaches to the promotion of physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1994;26:1405–1412.
9.
US Department of Health and Human Services.Healthy People 2010: With Understanding and Improving Health and Objectives for Improving Health. 2 vols.Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000.
10.
HeaneyCAGoetzelRZ. A review of health-related outcomes of multi-component worksite health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:290–307.
11.
GlasgowRETerborgJRHollisJF. Take heart: results from the initial phase of a work-site wellness program. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:209–216.
12.
BoothSLSallisJFRitenbaughC. Environmental and societal factors affect food choices and physical activity: rationale, influences, and leverage points. Nutr Rev. 2001;59:S21–S39.
13.
GlanzKLewisMLRimerB. Health Behavior and Health Education Theory, Research and Practice.2nd ed.San Francisco, Calif: Jossey Bass Inc; 1997.
14.
ShepardRJ. Worksite fitness and exercise programs: a review of methodology and health impact. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10:436–452.
15.
SaelensBESallisJFBlackJB. Measuring perceived neighborhood environment factors related to walking/cycling. Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:139.
16.
SaelensBESallisJFBlackJB. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1552–1558.
17.
AlexanderABergmanPHagstromerMSjostromM. IPAQ environmental module: reliability testing. J Public Health. 2006;14:76–80.
18.
OgilvieDMitchellRMutrieNPetticrewMPlattS. Perceived characteristics of the environment associated with active travel: development and testing of a new scale. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5:32. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2416440&blobtype=pdf. Accessed January 19, 2009.
19.
OwenNLeslieESalmonJ. Environmental determinants of physical activity and sedentary behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2000;28:153–158.
20.
OldenburgBSalisJFHarrisD. Checklist of health promotion environments at worksites (CHEW): development and measurement characteristics. Am J Health Promot. 2002;16:288–299.
TropedPJSaundersRPPateRR. Associations between self-reported and objective physical environmental factors and use of a community rail trail. Prev Med. 2001;31:191–200.
23.
BrownsonRCBakerEAHousemannRA. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1995–2003.
24.
HandySLBoarnetMGEwingRKillingsworthR. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(suppl):64–73.
25.
HumpelNOwenNLeslieE. Environmental factors associated with adult's participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:188–199.
26.
MarcusBHOwenNForsythLH. Physical activity interventions using mass media, print media, and information technology. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:362–378.
27.
PikoraTJBullFCJamrozikK. Developing a reliable audit instrument to measure the physical environment for physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23:187–194.
28.
Giles-CortiBDonovanRJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–1812.
29.
ArbelJWoodLHowatPGiles-CortiB. The class is always cheaper on the other side: socioeconomic discrepancies in the cost of using recreational facilities. Annals of Leisure Research. 2009;12:83–87.
HumpelNOwenNIversonD. Perceived environmental attributes, residential location, and walking for particular purposes. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26:119–125.
33.
SallisJFHovellMFHofstetterCR. A multivariate study of determinants of vigorous exercise in a community sample. Prev Med. 1989;18:20–34.
34.
BallKBaumanALeslieE. Perceived environmental aesthetics and convenience and company are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev Med. 2001;33:434–440.
35.
Giles-CortiBDonovanRJ. Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Prev Med. 2002;35:601–611.
36.
HoehnerCMBrennanRamirez LKElliottMB. Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(suppl 2):105–116.
37.
BoothMLOwenNBaumanA. Social-cognitive and perceived environment influences associated with physical activity in older Australians. Prev Med. 2000;31:15–22.
38.
WilcoxSCastroCKingAC. Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the US. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:667–672.
39.
LeslieEOwenNSalmonJ. Insufficiently active Australian college students: perceived personal, social, and environmental influences. Prev Med. 1999;28:20–27.
40.
AlreckPLSettleRB. The Survey Research Handbook.2nd ed.Boston, Mass: Irwin McGraw-Hill; 1995.
41.
FowlerFJ. Survey Research Methods.vol 1.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications; 1988.
42.
TabachnickBGFidellLS. Using Multivariate Statistics.4th ed.Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.
43.
Mattson-KoffmanDMBrownsteinJNNeinerJA. A site-specific literature review of policy and environmental interventions that promote physical activity and nutrition for cardiovascular health: what works?Am J Health Promot. 2005;19:167–193.
