- Email: [email protected]
Physical activity assessment instrument
should continue. The strategy of further disseminating the instructional plan and related materials held the promise of reaching more of the state's students with more effective nutrition education than either the strategy of implementing locally developed pilot projects or the strategy of distributing collections of instructional materials to school systems with no accompanying plan for their use. Utility of the plan. As is the case in most field work, the evaluators experienced some frustrations with constraints imposed by time, resources, and the evaluation context. Twice, the new curriculum was evaluated on the basis of students' experience with a single year of a sequential plan that was designed to achieve cumulative effects over a 13-year (K-12) period. In such a brief time we could not expect changes in all areas, and teachers apparently focused primarily on the knowledge dimension. The plate-waste component was only marginally successful. Although the observation measure was easier to administer than the more precise weighing of plate waste, the limited number of students included in the subsample selected for observation, the variation among schools in kind and quality of foods served, and the problems associated with using a single meal to assess dietary practices provided data of questionable reliability and validity. In addition, although the field assistants received a brief training session prior to data collection, some of them had limited knowledge of foods and thus had difficulty categorizing and describing them. Evaluation of a statewide program, with implementation sites located hundreds of miles apart, made it difficult to monitor the
PHYSICAL Issues of physical activity often arise during the course of nutritional assessments. Additionally, nutrition education efforts are frequently coupled with attempts to increase physical activity and exercise. Therefore, many nutritionists find themselves involved in measuring physical activity. Sallis et al. (American Journal oj Epidemiology 121:91-106,1985) recently reported on a physical activity measure used to quantify the habits of individuals involved in a community-based health education trial.
VOLUME
17
NUMBER
2
1985
extent to which the new curriculum was implemented in the various schools and classrooms. Curriculum designers were able to standardize the training that potential implementors received prior to the first year of classroom use, but each of the 21 school systems using the instructional plan during year 3 conducted its own in-service training. Similarly, standardized administration techniques used by trained field assistants for the assessments during the first two years could not be guaranteed when local school personnel administered the CANKAP in the third year. Despite these limitations we were, generally, satisfied with our original design and subsequent adaptations. Several positive features emerged that can strengthen evaluations of other nutrition education programs. • The state NET coordinator used the evaluators' skills in the program design stage to ensure that a) program components were given appropriate priorities based on identified needs, and b) specific objectives associated with each component included outcomes that could be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. • This was a three-year evaluation; too often an evaluator is given one year or less to assess the effects of a single trial of an educational intervention. Moreover, the NET coordinator made effective use of preliminary evaluation findings to implement midcourse improvements in the conduct of program components. Applying multiple techniques to assess each component increased the validity of the evaluation design, as did the use of a comparison group not exposed to the instructional plan. • The initial evaluation approach was comprehensive: It included all components of the state NET program. This made it
ACTIVITY
ASSESSMENT
possible to assess the relative impact of each component and to determine which of the components should be continued when funding limitations dictated the curtailment of many activities. • The evaluation approach itself was sufficiently adaptable for continuing use throughout the phases of progressive resource limitation. Thus, adjustment to political and field realities could be made without jeopardizing the validity of evaluation results. 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Tennessee Department of Education provided funds for the program evaluation on which this article is based. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the cooperation and support of the state NET coordinator, Helen Minns. Appreciation also is extended to colleagues at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who assisted in designing the evaluation, and collecting and analyzing the resulting data: Lynn Cagle, Sheldon Clark, Pamela Freeman, Caroline Goddard, Sandra Miller, Dulcie Peccolo, Lynne Roberson, Sharon Teets, and Paul Wright. LITERATURE CITED 1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Secretary of Agriculture. What can be done to improve nutrition education efforts in the schools? Gaithersburg, MD, 1982, p. 29. 2 Hanson, R. A., and R. E. Schutz. Rethinking evaluation design for nutrition education programs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:86-89. 1981. 3 Gillespie, A. H. A theoretical framework for studying school nutrition education programs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:150-52, 1981. 4 Levy, S. R., B. K. Iverson, and H. J. Walberg.- Nutrition education research: An interdisciplinary evaluation and review. Health Education Quarterly 7:107-26,1980. 5 Talmage, H., O. D. Haertel, and J. K. Brun. Using learning environment data in formative curriculum evaluation. Journal oj Nutrition Education 13:14-16, 1981. 6 Worthen, B. R., and J. R. Sanders eds. Educational evaluation: Theory and practice, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1973, 372 pp. 7 Miller, S. W., S. T. Teets, J. D. Skinner, J. L. Cunningham, L. C. Cagle, 1. D. Gorski, C. W. Goddard, and N. A. Reimann.
Tennessee educates for nutrition now: An instructional plan for kindergarten through grade 6, Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1981, 290 pp. 8 Cunningham. 1. L. , 1. D. Skinner, L. C. Cagle, S. W. Miller, and S. T. Teets. Development of CANKAP-A multidimensional measure of nutritional beliefs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:205-14, 1981. 9 Banta. T. W., S. Clark. L. Crowley, 1. L. Cunningham, W. W. Jozwiak, M. P. McCabe, D. Peccoio, L. Roberson, and J. Skinner. Evaluation of the Tennessee Nutrition Education and Training Program -1980 Final Report, Knoxville: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The University of, Tennessee, 1980, 401 pp.
INSTRUMENT
The authors commented that despite the widespread interest in and reporting of physical activity assessment, comprehensive methods of assessing exercise behavior have not been systematically applied. They therefore designed a questionnaire that is practical for large health surveys, provides information on the distribution of activity habits in the population, and detects changes in activity over time. The questionnaire, which is reproduced in an appendix to the article, is a self-report, interviewer-ad-
ministered, seven-day total activity recall, and it covers work and leisure activities. A separate study was conducted to examine the test-retest reliability of the measure. Reliabilities for the components varied considerably, but the means were very stable. The authors pointed out that, as with most selfreport instruments, the reliabilities were less than desirable, and they suggested specific areas of research for improving the psychometric qualities of physical activity measures.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
43
PHYSICAL Issues of physical activity often arise during the course of nutritional assessments. Additionally, nutrition education efforts are frequently coupled with attempts to increase physical activity and exercise. Therefore, many nutritionists find themselves involved in measuring physical activity. Sallis et al. (American Journal oj Epidemiology 121:91-106,1985) recently reported on a physical activity measure used to quantify the habits of individuals involved in a community-based health education trial.
VOLUME
17
NUMBER
2
1985
extent to which the new curriculum was implemented in the various schools and classrooms. Curriculum designers were able to standardize the training that potential implementors received prior to the first year of classroom use, but each of the 21 school systems using the instructional plan during year 3 conducted its own in-service training. Similarly, standardized administration techniques used by trained field assistants for the assessments during the first two years could not be guaranteed when local school personnel administered the CANKAP in the third year. Despite these limitations we were, generally, satisfied with our original design and subsequent adaptations. Several positive features emerged that can strengthen evaluations of other nutrition education programs. • The state NET coordinator used the evaluators' skills in the program design stage to ensure that a) program components were given appropriate priorities based on identified needs, and b) specific objectives associated with each component included outcomes that could be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. • This was a three-year evaluation; too often an evaluator is given one year or less to assess the effects of a single trial of an educational intervention. Moreover, the NET coordinator made effective use of preliminary evaluation findings to implement midcourse improvements in the conduct of program components. Applying multiple techniques to assess each component increased the validity of the evaluation design, as did the use of a comparison group not exposed to the instructional plan. • The initial evaluation approach was comprehensive: It included all components of the state NET program. This made it
ACTIVITY
ASSESSMENT
possible to assess the relative impact of each component and to determine which of the components should be continued when funding limitations dictated the curtailment of many activities. • The evaluation approach itself was sufficiently adaptable for continuing use throughout the phases of progressive resource limitation. Thus, adjustment to political and field realities could be made without jeopardizing the validity of evaluation results. 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Tennessee Department of Education provided funds for the program evaluation on which this article is based. The authors acknowledge with appreciation the cooperation and support of the state NET coordinator, Helen Minns. Appreciation also is extended to colleagues at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who assisted in designing the evaluation, and collecting and analyzing the resulting data: Lynn Cagle, Sheldon Clark, Pamela Freeman, Caroline Goddard, Sandra Miller, Dulcie Peccolo, Lynne Roberson, Sharon Teets, and Paul Wright. LITERATURE CITED 1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Report to the Secretary of Agriculture. What can be done to improve nutrition education efforts in the schools? Gaithersburg, MD, 1982, p. 29. 2 Hanson, R. A., and R. E. Schutz. Rethinking evaluation design for nutrition education programs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:86-89. 1981. 3 Gillespie, A. H. A theoretical framework for studying school nutrition education programs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:150-52, 1981. 4 Levy, S. R., B. K. Iverson, and H. J. Walberg.- Nutrition education research: An interdisciplinary evaluation and review. Health Education Quarterly 7:107-26,1980. 5 Talmage, H., O. D. Haertel, and J. K. Brun. Using learning environment data in formative curriculum evaluation. Journal oj Nutrition Education 13:14-16, 1981. 6 Worthen, B. R., and J. R. Sanders eds. Educational evaluation: Theory and practice, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1973, 372 pp. 7 Miller, S. W., S. T. Teets, J. D. Skinner, J. L. Cunningham, L. C. Cagle, 1. D. Gorski, C. W. Goddard, and N. A. Reimann.
Tennessee educates for nutrition now: An instructional plan for kindergarten through grade 6, Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1981, 290 pp. 8 Cunningham. 1. L. , 1. D. Skinner, L. C. Cagle, S. W. Miller, and S. T. Teets. Development of CANKAP-A multidimensional measure of nutritional beliefs. Journal of Nutrition Education 13:205-14, 1981. 9 Banta. T. W., S. Clark. L. Crowley, 1. L. Cunningham, W. W. Jozwiak, M. P. McCabe, D. Peccoio, L. Roberson, and J. Skinner. Evaluation of the Tennessee Nutrition Education and Training Program -1980 Final Report, Knoxville: Bureau of Educational Research and Service, The University of, Tennessee, 1980, 401 pp.
INSTRUMENT
The authors commented that despite the widespread interest in and reporting of physical activity assessment, comprehensive methods of assessing exercise behavior have not been systematically applied. They therefore designed a questionnaire that is practical for large health surveys, provides information on the distribution of activity habits in the population, and detects changes in activity over time. The questionnaire, which is reproduced in an appendix to the article, is a self-report, interviewer-ad-
ministered, seven-day total activity recall, and it covers work and leisure activities. A separate study was conducted to examine the test-retest reliability of the measure. Reliabilities for the components varied considerably, but the means were very stable. The authors pointed out that, as with most selfreport instruments, the reliabilities were less than desirable, and they suggested specific areas of research for improving the psychometric qualities of physical activity measures.
JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION
43