Development and Validation of the Policies, Opportunities, Initiatives and Notable Topics (POINTS) Audit for Campuses and Worksites

Horacek, Tanya; Simon, Marlei; Yildirim, Elif Dede; White, Adrienne A.; Shelnutt, Karla P.; Riggsbee, Kristin; Olfert, Melissa D.; Morrell, Jesse Stabile; Mathews, Anne; Zhou, Wenjun; Kidd, Tandalayo; Kattelmann, Kendra; Greene, Geoffrey; Franzen‐Castle, Lisa; Colby, Sarah; Byrd‐Bredbenner, Carol; Brown, Onikia

doi:10.3390/ijerph16050778

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PACES training and practice require approximately 2-3 hours, and an audit can be completed in 25–30 mins per facility or survey. The PACES audit is part of the Healthy Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA), a series audit tools to evaluate restaurants [61], convenience stores [62], vending [63], walkability/bikeability [27], and policies [26]. The PACES audit is user-friendly and available on the internet, with training and data entry links (contact the primary author for information).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Horacek

Yildirim

Seidman

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the redesign, field-testing, and convergent validity of a practical tool—Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) audit. Methods. The audit includes two parts: (1) PACES-Programs, which is comprised of questions regarding populations served, fees, programs (recreation/fitness classes and intramurals), proximity, adequacy of facilities, and marketing, and (2) PACES-Facilities, which is comprised of questions regarding built environment (aesthetics, bike racks, stairs, and universal design), recreation equipment, staff, amenities, and access. Each item criterion is specifically scored using a five-point, semantic-differential scale ranging from limited to extensive environmental support. A few questions utilize select all that apply for a summed score. PACES training, interrater reliability, and data collection are all accessible via an online portal. PACES was tested on 76 college campuses. Convergent validity was examined by comparing the PACES-Programs questions to Healthy Campus Initiatives-Programs questions (HCI-Programs) and comparing the PACES-Facilities questions to questions contained in the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) Instrument. Statistical analyses included Cronbach’s alpha, ANOVA, latent profile analysis, and Spearman correlations. Results. The PACES-Programs audit includes 10 items for a potential total of 73 points (α = 0.72) and PACES-Facilities audit includes 15 items for a potential total of 77 points (α = 0.837). Most (77.8%) of the 153 facilities assessed scored in the most healthful range (20–42), which was mainly due to the extensiveness of the aerobic equipment/amenities and the competence/accessibility of staff. Significant differences in PACES-Total and PACES-Programs scores were associated with campus size and PACES-Facilities across regions. For the paired validation assessments, correlations were significant between PACES-Programs and HCI-Programs ((n=41) r=0.498, p<0.001) and PACES-Facilities and PARA (n=29) for both features (r=0.417, p=0.024) and amenities (r=0.612, p<0.001), indicating moderate convergent validity. Conclusion. The PACES audit is a valid, reliable tool for assessing the quality of recreation facilities and programs in a variety of college campus environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The evaluation audits the overall campus environment, and the quality and extensiveness of the physical activity supports which contribute to making healthy physical activity decisions. The initiatives/policy support [26] and walkability/bikeability of a campus [27] were evaluated separately with other audits.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Horacek

Yildirim

Seidman

et al. 2019

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lastly, student researchers decided to assess their built environment and chose to evaluate health policies that exist on campus [ 35 ] and the nutrition environment of the campus food pantries [ 36 ]. Food pantries were assessed through the Nutrition Environment Food Pantry Assessment Tool (NEFPAT).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community-Based Participatory Research: Partnering with College Students to Develop a Tailored, Wellness-Focused Intervention for University Campuses

Barr

McNamara

2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

College students face unique challenges with leading healthful lifestyles. Using a community-based participatory research approach, college student research partners at two land-grant universities collected data and developed a tailored intervention to improve the well-being of college students. To inform the design of the program, college students were trained to conduct a needs assessment that included a campus-wide survey on the health behaviors of college students, environmental audits of health policies and food pantries on campus, and stakeholder interviews with campus health professionals. Outcomes of the needs assessment data highlighted university students ranked their health as “good” but nutrition health as “fair/poor.” Low or very low food security was self-reported by 36.9% of participants and had an overall diet quality score of 47.6 ± 10.1 out of 100. Health professional interview data indicated campuses provide healthful resources to students, but students are not aware those resources exist. Utilizing the needs assessment data previously mentioned, the nominal group technique was then used for student research partners to collaboratively determine the best intervention approaches and develop a wellness program. Student partners identified (1) education, (2) sharing of campus resources, and (3) incentives as important areas of intervention. Using the data collected, the student research partners developed a program titled, The College Cooking Connection, to address health-related quality of life in college students. Using a community-based participatory research approach to program planning, educators and researchers have a greater likelihood of addressing the current needs of the population they are targeting and developing a successful intervention to meet those health concerns. This study aims to partner with young adult university students to understand the college environment and allow the target community to be involved with the development of intervention programs for their campus.

show abstract

“…The HCEA is composed of five audits focusing on campus environmental demographics (CA), dining environment (FRESH audit), recreation facilities (PACES audit), policies (POINTS audit), and vending machines (VENDing audit) (See Supplemental Materials for details). These audits have been validated in studies completed on various campus environments (Horacek et al, 2019a(Horacek et al, , 2019b(Horacek et al, , 2019c.…”

Section: Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Food and Physical Activity Environment on a University Campus

Castellitto¹,

Fitzgerald²

2020

ArestyRURJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Large percentages of college students are reported to be overweight and sedentary and do not consume the recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables. These outcomes can be influenced by the students’ environment. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of healthfulness and environmental supports on Rutgers University’s Cook Campus (RU)—one of the five Rutgers campuses—by examining campus food and physical activity environment, and related policies. As a part of the nationwide Get Fruved study on over 90 college/university campuses, the Healthy Campus Environmental Audit (HCEA) instrument was used to assess dining establishments, vending machines, recreational environment, and policies at RU. RU scores were compared to the original scales and to the average of the other Get Fruved universities/colleges. RU’s healthfulness scores for dining halls/cafeterias, recreational environment, vending machine supports, and stimulants policy were on the higher end of the scales and above the averages of other Get Fruved schools. However, RU’s scores indicated limited healthfulness in fast-food/sit-down restaurants; walking/biking supports; availability of healthy snacks and beverages in vending machines; healthy eating policies; and policies encouraging physical activity and chronic disease prevention. This study identified the strengths and weaknesses in RU’s campus environment and in RU’s policies for healthy eating and active living. These results can be used to support a healthier campus environment.

show abstract

Development and Validation of the Policies, Opportunities, Initiatives and Notable Topics (POINTS) Audit for Campuses and Worksites

Cited by 6 publications

References 74 publications

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Redesign, Field-Testing, and Validation of the Physical Activity Campus Environmental Supports (PACES) Audit

Community-Based Participatory Research: Partnering with College Students to Develop a Tailored, Wellness-Focused Intervention for University Campuses

Assessment of the Food and Physical Activity Environment on a University Campus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About