Development of HomeSTEAD’s physical activity and screen time physical environment inventory

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Dianne S Ward¹  June Stevens³  Christina McWilliams¹  Rachel G Tabak⁴  Maria J Bryant²  Stephanie Mazzucca¹  Amber E Vaughn¹  Derek Hales¹ 

[1] Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1700 Martin L. King Jr. Blvd., CB 7426, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7426, USA;Clinical Trials Unit (CTRU), University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK;Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 245 Rosenau Hall, CB 7461, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7461, USA;Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, 621 North Skinker Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63130-4838, USA

关键词: Measurement;    Screen time;    Physical activity;    Physical characteristics;    Home environment;   

Others  :  805946
DOI  :  10.1186/1479-5868-10-132

 received in 2013-06-19, accepted in 2013-11-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The home environment has a significant influence on children’s physical activity, sedentary behavior, dietary intake, and risk for obesity and chronic disease. Our understanding of the most influential factors and how they interact and impact child behavior is limited by current measurement tools, specifically the lack of a comprehensive instrument. HomeSTEAD (the Home Self-administered Tool for Environmental assessment of Activity and Diet) was designed to address this gap. This new tool contains four sections: home physical activity and media equipment inventory, family physical activity and screen time practices, home food inventory, and family food practices. This paper will describe HomeSTEAD’s development and present reliability and validity evidence for the first section.

Methods

The ANGELO framework guided instrument development, and systematic literature reviews helped identify existing items or scales for possible inclusion. Refinement of items was based on expert review and cognitive interviews. Parents of children ages 3–12 years (n = 125) completed the HomeSTEAD survey on three separate occasions over 12–18 days (Time 1, 2, and 3). The Time 1 survey also collected demographic information and parent report of child behaviors. Between Time 1 and 2, staff conducted an in-home observation and measured parent and child BMI. Kappa and intra-class correlations were used to examine reliability (test-retest) and validity (criterion and construct).

Results

Reliability and validity was strong for most items (97% having ICC > 0.60 and 72% having r > 0.50, respectively). Items with lower reliability generally had low variation between people. Lower validity estimates (r < 0.30) were more common for items that assessed usability and accessibility, with observers generally rating usability and accessibility lower than parents. Small to moderate, but meaningful, correlations between physical environment factors and BMI, outside time, and screen time were observed (e.g., amount of child portable play equipment in good condition and easy to access was significantly associated with child BMI: r = -0.23), providing evidence of construct validity.

Conclusions

The HomeSTEAD instrument represents a clear advancement in the measurement of factors in the home environment related to child weight and weight-related behaviors. HomeSTEAD, in its entirety, represents a useful tool for researchers from which they can draw particular scales of greatest interest and highest relevance to their research questions.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Hales et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ogden CL, et al.: Prevalence of obesity and trends in body mass index among US children and adolescents, 1999–2010. JAMA 2012, 307(5):483-490.
• [2]Lobstein T, Baur L, Uauy R: Obesity in children and young people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev 2004, 5(Suppl 1):4-85.
• [3]Gupta N, et al.: Childhood obesity in developing countries: epidemiology, determinants, and prevention. Endocr Rev 2012, 33(1):48-70.
• [4]Daniels SR, et al.: Overweight in children and adolescents: pathophysiology, consequences, prevention, and treatment. Circulation 2005, 111(15):1999-2012.
• [5]French SA, Story M, Jeffery RW: Environmental influences on eating and physical activity. Annu Rev Public Health 2001, 22:309-335.
• [6]Birch LL, Davison KK: Family environmental factors influencing the developing behavioral controls of food intake and childhood overweight. Pediatr Clin North Am 2001, 48(4):893-907.
• [7]Harrison K, et al.: Toward a Developmental Conceptualization of Contributors to Overweight and Obesity in Childhood: The Six-Cs Model. Child Dev Perspect 2011, 5(1):50-58.
• [8]Ferreira I, et al.: Environmental correlates of physical activity in youth - a review and update. Obes Rev 2007, 8(2):129-154.
• [9]van der Horst K, et al.: A systematic review of environmental correlates of obesity-related dietary behaviors in youth. Health Educ Res 2007, 22(2):203-226.
• [10]Pinard CA, et al.: Measures of the home environment related to childhood obesity: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 2012, 15(1):97-109.
• [11]Gattshall ML, et al.: Validation of a survey instrument to assess home environments for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008, 5:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Bryant MJ, et al.: Reliability and validity of the Healthy Home Survey: a tool to measure factors within homes hypothesized to relate to overweight in children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008, 5(1):23. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Swinburn B, Egger G, Raza F: Dissecting obesogenic environments: the development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Prev Med 1999, 29(6 Pt 1):563-570.
• [14]Rosenkranz RR, Dzewaltowski DA: Model of the home food environment pertaining to childhood obesity. Nutr Rev 2008, 66(3):123-140.
• [15]Vaughn AE, et al.: Measuring parent food practices: a systematic review of existing measures and examination of instruments. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013, 10(1):61. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Neuhouser ML, et al.: Development and Validation of a Beverage and Snack Questionnaire for Use in Evaluation of School Nutrition Policies. J Am Diet Assoc 2009, 109(9):1587-1592.
• [17]Kuczmarski RJ, et al.: CDC Growth Charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital and health statistics. Series 11. Data Nat Health Surv 2000, 2002(246):1-190.
• [18]Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86(2):420-428.
• [19]Heise DR: Separating Reliability and Stability in Test-Retest Correlation. Am Sociol Rev 1969, 34(1):93-101.
• [20]Wiley DE, Wiley JA: Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data. Am Sociol Rev 1970, 35(1):112-117.
• [21]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33(1):159-174.
• [22]Shrout PE: Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat methods Med Res 1998, 7(3):301-317.
• [23]Sleddens EF, et al.: Physical activity parenting: a systematic review of questionnaires and their associations with child activity levels. Obes Rev 2012, 13(11):1015-1033.
• [24]Rosenberg DE, et al.: Brief scales to assess physical activity and sedentary equipment in the home. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010, 7:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Sirard JR, et al.: Validity and reliability of a home environment inventory for physical activity and media equipment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008, 5(1):24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Pinard CA, et al.: The Validity and Reliability of the Comprehensive Home Environment Survey (CHES). Health Promot Pract 2013.
• [27]Tandon PS, et al.: Home environment relationships with children’s physical activity, sedentary time, and screen time by socioeconomic status. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:88. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Sisson SB, Broyles ST: Social-ecological correlates of excessive TV viewing: difference by race and sex. J Phys Act Health 2012, 9(3):449-455.
• [29]Feng D, et al.: Effects of TV in the bedroom on young Hispanic children. Am J Health Promot 2011, 25(5):310-318.
• [30]Granich J, et al.: Individual, social, and physical environment factors associated with electronic media use among children: sedentary behavior at home. J Phys Act Health 2011, 8(5):613-625.
• [31]Vandewater EA, et al.: Digital Childhood: Electronic Media and Technology Use Among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers. Pediatrics 2007, 119(5):e1006-e1015.
• [32]Jago R, et al.: Screen-viewing and the home TV environment: the European Youth Heart Study. Prev Med 2008, 47(5):525-529.
• [33]Salmon J, et al.: Association of family environment with children’s television viewing and with low level of physical activity. Obes Res 2005, 13(11):1939-1951.
• [34]Saelens B, et al.: Home environmental influences on children’s television watching from early to middle childhood. J Dev Behav Pediatr 2002, 23(3):127-132.
• [35]Crawford DA, et al.: Home and neighbourhood correlates of BMI among children living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Br J Nutr 2012, 107(7):1028-1036.
• [36]Adachi-Mejia AM, et al.: Children with a TV in their bedroom at higher risk for being overweight. Int J Obes (Lond) 2007, 31(4):644-651.
• [37]Trost SG, et al.: Correlates of objectively measured physical activity in preadolescent youth. Am J Prev Med 1999, 17(2):120-126.
• [38]Byun W, Dowda M, Pate RR: Correlates of objectively measured sedentary behavior in US preschool children. Pediatrics 2011, 128(5):937-945.