The physical activity parenting practices (PAPP) item Bank: a psychometrically validated tool for improving the measurement of physical activity parenting practices of parents of 5-12-year-old children

Louise C Mâsse, Teresia M O'Connor, Yingyi Lin, Nicole S Carbert, Sheryl O Hughes, Tom Baranowski, Mark R Beauchamp, Louise C Mâsse, Teresia M O'Connor, Yingyi Lin, Nicole S Carbert, Sheryl O Hughes, Tom Baranowski, Mark R Beauchamp

Abstract

Background: Many tools have been developed to measure physical activity parenting practices (PAPP). Currently, there is little standardization on how PAPP constructs are operationalized for 5-12 year-old children. Given this lack of consistency our team have started the process of standardizing the measurement of PAPP by developing an item bank which was conceptually informed by 24 experts from 6 countries.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present the psychometric properties of the PAPP item bank using the expert-informed PAPP conceptual framework.

Methods: A sample (N = 626) of Canadian parents completed the PAPP item bank (100 items measuring 12 constructs). Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), confirmatory bi-factor item analyses, and Item Response Modeling (IRM) were used to assess the structural validity of scores derived from the PAPP item bank. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and Differential Response Functioning (DRF) were used to determine whether the PAPP items are invariant by parent sex, ethnicity of parent, and household income. Finally, Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) simulations were used to determine the efficiency of the item bank - this involved ascertaining whether each construct can be assessed with fewer items.

Results: The PAPP expert-informed conceptual framework was mainly supported by the CFA analyses. Notable changes included: a) collapsing smaller constructs into one general construct (modeling, co-participation, and monitoring constructs were collapsed into a construct assessing nondirective support); or b) splitting a construct into two smaller constructs (restrict for safety reason construct was split into indoor physical activity restriction and allowance for unsupervised outside physical activity). While the CFA analyses supported the structural validity of 11 constructs, the bi-factor item analyses and IRM analyses supported collapsing correlated constructs into more general constructs. These analyses further reduced the number of constructs measured by the PAPP item bank to nine constructs (65 items - reliability ranging from .79 to .94). As seven of the PAPP constructs had reliability greater than .80, CAT simulations further reduced the number of items to 31 items.

Conclusion: Overall, the PAPP item bank has excellent psychometric properties and provides an efficient way to assess PAPP.

Keywords: Children; Measurement; Parents; Physical activity parenting practices; Questionnaire; Reliability; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Analytical steps to regroup correlated constructs into general constructs
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Expert informed Physical Activity (PA) conceptual framework and its alignment with the results

References

    1. Powell KE, King AC, Buchner DM, Campbell WW, DiPietro L, Erickson KI, et al. The Scientific Foundation for the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans , 2nd Edition. J Phys Act Health. 2019;16(1):1–11.
    1. WHO (World Health Recommendation). Global recommendation on physical activity for health. Geneva; 2010. p. 58. Available from: . Cited 2020 Sept 1.
    1. Rasberry CN, Lee SM, Robin L, Laris BA, Russell LA, Coyle KK, et al. The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: a systematic review of the literature. Prev Med. 2011;52 Suppl 1(1096–0260):S10–S20.
    1. Colley RC, Carson V, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Roberts KC, Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth, 2007 to 2015. Health Rep. 2017;28(10):8–16.
    1. Janssen I, Roberts KC, Thompson W. Adherence to the 24-hour movement guidelines among 10- to 17-year-old Canadians. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Canada. 2017;37(11):369–375.
    1. Dumith SC, Gigante DP, Domingues MR, Kohl HW., III Physical activity change during adolescence: a systematic review and a pooled analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40(1464–3685):685–698.
    1. Dwyer JJ, Allison KR, Makin S. Internal structure of a measure of self-efficacy in physical activity among high school students. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46(9):1175–1182.
    1. Nader PR, Bradley RH, Houts RM, McRitchie SL, O’brien M. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. JAMA. 2008;300(1538–3598):295–305.
    1. Davison KK, Masse LC, Timperio A, Frenn M, Saunders J, Mendoza JA, et al. Physical activity parenting measurement and research: challenges, explanations, and solutions. Child Obes. 2013;9(S1):S103–S109.
    1. Hutchens A, Lee RE. Parenting practices and Children’s physical activity: an integrative review. J Sch Nurs. 2018;34(1):68–85.
    1. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychol Bull. 1993;113:487–496.
    1. Trost SG, McDonald S, Cohen A. Measurement of general and specific approaches to physical activity parenting: a systematic review. Child Obes. 2013;9 Suppl(2153–2176):S40–S50.
    1. Arredondo EM, Elder JP, Ayala GX, Campbell N, Baquero B, Duerksen S. Is parenting style related to children’s healthy eating and physical activity in Latino families? Health Educ Res. 2006;21(0268–1153):862–871.
    1. Bradley RH, McRitchie S, Houts RM, Nader P, O’brien M. Parenting and the decline of physical activity from age 9 to 15. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(1479–5868):33.
    1. Miller AR, Masse LC, Shen J, Schiariti V, Roxborough L. Diagnostic status, functional status and complexity among Canadian children with neurodevelopmental disorders and disabilities: a population-based study. Disabil Rehabil. 2013;35(1464–5165):468–478.
    1. Mâsse LC, O’Connor TM, Tu AW, Hughes SO, Beauchamp MR, Baranowski T. Conceptualizing physical activity parenting practices using expert informed concept mapping analysis. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1–11.
    1. Baranowski T, O’Connor T, Hughes S, Sleddens E, Beltran A, Frankel L, et al. Houston... We have a problem! Measurement of parenting. Child Obes. 2013;9 Suppl(2153–2176):S1–S4.
    1. Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 1997;6(0962–9343):595–600.
    1. Baumrind D. Patterns of parental authority and adolescent autonomy. New Dir Child Adolesc Dev. 2005;2005:61–69.
    1. Slater MA, Power TG. Multidimensional assessment of parenting in single-parent families. In: Vincent JP, editor. Advances in family intervention, assessment and theory. Greenwich: JAI Press; 1987. pp. 197–228.
    1. Mâsse LC, O’Connor TM, Tu AW, Watts AW, Beauchamp MR, Hughes SO, et al. Are the Physical Activity Parenting Practices Reported by US and Canadian Parents Captured in Currently Published Instruments? J Phys Act Health. 2016;13:1070–1078.
    1. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2005. p. 352.
    1. Muthen LK, Muthen B. Mplusr User’s guide. Seventh. Muthen & Muthen: Los Angeles; 2012.
    1. Beauducel A, Herzberg PY. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least sqaures estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Model. 2006;13:186–203.
    1. Hu L, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, editor. Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage Publication; 1995.
    1. DiStefano C, Liu J, Jiang N, Shi D. Examination of the weighted root mean square residual: evidence for trustworthiness? Struct Equ Model. 2018;25(3):453–466.
    1. Nigg CR, McCurdy DK, McGee KA, Motl RW, Paxton RJ, Horwath CC, et al. Relations among temptations, self-efficacy, and physical activity. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2009;7:230–243.
    1. Chen F, Curran PJ, Bollen KA, Kirby J, Paxton P. An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in Structural Equation Models. Sociol Methods Res. 2008;36(4):462–494.
    1. Stucky BD, Thissen D, Orlando EM. Using logistic approximations of marginal trace lines to develop short assessments. Appl Psychol Meas. 2013;37(1):41–57.
    1. Chalmers P, Pritikin J, Robitzsch A, Zoltak M, Kim K, Falk CF, et al. Package ‘MIRT’. [revised 2020 Apr 25, 2020; cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: .
    1. Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Structural equation modeling: a second course. 2. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.; 2013. p. 703.
    1. Chalmers RP. Package for the R environment. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(6):1–29.
    1. Choi S. Firestar: computerized adaptive testing (CAT) simulation program for Polytomous IRT models. Appl Psychol Meas. 2009;33:644–645.
    1. Grolnick WS, Pomerantz EM. Issues and challenges in studyin parental control: toward a new conceptualization. Child Dev Perspect. 2009;3(3):165–170.
    1. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. JClinEpidemiol. 2010;63(1878–5921):1179–1194.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner