Active Where? Surveys

1. Abstract

The Active Where? Surveys represent an extensive suite of psychometric and environmental assessment instruments developed to capture the micro- and macro-environmental determinants of physical activity and dietary behaviors in youth. Conceptualized by a multidisciplinary team led by Dr. James F. Sallis and Dr. Jacqueline Kerr, the instrument was engineered to address a critical empirical gap: the historical reliance on adult-oriented built environment measures that failed to capture the developmental, social, and functional realities of children and adolescents. Developed through an initial phase of formative in situ qualitative research with parent-child dyads followed by extensive multi-site psychometric testing across three distinct metropolitan areas in the United States (San Diego, California; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Boston, Massachusetts), the survey suite evaluates multi-level ecological contexts. These contexts encompass the home environment, neighborhood physical infrastructure, park and recreational spaces, active transport corridors, and school facilities.

The complete survey system comprises complementary questionnaires tailored for self-administration by adolescents (aged 12–19 years), parent-adolescent dyads, and parent-child dyads (for children aged 5–11 years). The core survey architecture features multi-item scales measuring walking and cycling infrastructure, aesthetics, traffic hazards, personal safety and crime, home exercise equipment availability, family and peer social support, and neighborhood destination accessibility. The response formats vary by subscale, featuring 4-point Likert-type agreement scales, 5-point frequency dimensions, spatial proximity metrics, and binary inventories. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust test-retest reliability across a two-week interval, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) generally ranging from .55 to .88 for perceived neighborhood attributes, and moderate-to-high convergent and criterion validity against geographic information systems (GIS) objective walkability metrics, accelerometer-measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and youth body mass index (BMI). The Active Where? Surveys serve as a gold-standard methodological benchmark in pediatric behavioral medicine, spatial epidemiology, and urban planning for youth health promotion.

2. Keywords

Active Where? Surveys, built environment, physical activity, pediatric obesity, active transport, neighborhood walkability, ecological models, psychometrics, test-retest reliability, adolescent health.

3. Authors

The Active Where? Surveys were conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers in pediatric behavioral medicine, spatial epidemiology, and physical activity research:

• Jacqueline Kerr, Ph.D.: Behavioral epidemiologist and former Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Dr. Kerr specializes in ecological approaches to physical activity measurement, sedentary behavior interventions, and geospatial health analysis.
• James F. Sallis, Ph.D.: Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of California, San Diego, and Professorial Fellow at the Australian Catholic University. A pioneer in health psychology, Dr. Sallis directed the Active Living Research program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and has authored foundational work on socio-ecological models of physical activity.
• Dori E. Rosenberg, M.P.H., Ph.D.: Senior Investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute and Affiliate Associate Professor at the University of Washington. Her research centers on sedentary behavior, environmental prompts, and chronic disease prevention in diverse populations.
• Gregory J. Norman, Ph.D.: Former Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at UCSD, specializing in health behavior change methodologies, quantitative psychometrics, and digital health interventions.
• Brian E. Saelens, Ph.D.: Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Research Institute. Dr. Saelens is an authority on pediatric obesity, neighborhood environment influences on youth physical activity and nutrition, and environmental audit validation.
• Nefertiti H. Durant, M.D., M.P.H.: Associate Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Adolescent Medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). Dr. Durant’s work centers on physical activity interventions among adolescent girls, pediatric cardiovascular health, and racial/ethnic health disparities.

4. Purpose

The primary objective of the Active Where? Surveys is to quantify the perceived attributes of multiple social, physical, and micro-environmental settings that either facilitate or impede physical activity and healthy dietary intake among children and youth. Historically, pediatric behavioral health research relied on proxy measures adapted directly from adult instruments, such as the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS). However, developmental distinctions fundamentally alter how youth interact with space. Unlike adults, youth do not routinely engage in independent vehicular transit, are constrained by parental geographic boundaries (i.e., parental “licensing” to navigate neighborhood spaces), experience environments through spontaneous physical play rather than structured exercise, and encounter distinct institutional structures such as schools, local parks, and residential yards.

To overcome these limitations, the Active Where? Project was formulated under the auspices of the Active Living Research (ALR) initiative, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Its clinical and research aims encompass:

• Deconstructing Youth-Specific Spatial Determinants: Providing reliable measurement scales that assess features uniquely relevant to youth, including local park features, dedicated cycling paths, pedestrian infrastructure near academic institutions, yard play space, and the presence of stray animals or neighborhood incivilities (e.g., graffiti, litter, abandoned structures).
• Dyadic Perceptual Concordance: Facilitating parallel evaluations between parents and adolescents to elucidate how parental safety perceptions and environmental constraints moderate youth independent mobility and spontaneous outdoor activity.
• Epidemiological Surveillance and Etiological Modeling: Equipping public health investigators with standardized tools to investigate the socio-spatial pathways driving the youth obesity epidemic, cardiovascular risk stratification, and chronic disease etiology across heterogeneous socio-economic strata.
• Urban Planning and Policy Intervention: Generating granular empirical evidence for municipal planners, school boards, and urban landscape architects to prioritize municipal built environment modifications—such as installing traffic-calming devices, lighting, crosswalk signals, and expanding park amenities—that tangibly promote youth active commuting and outdoor play.

5. Psychological Construct

The Active Where? Surveys conceptualize the environmental determinant architecture not as a monolithic construct, but as a multi-domain psychological and behavioral system. The instrument measures several operationalized dimensions:

Perceived Neighborhood Walking and Biking Infrastructure

This dimension quantifies the presence, functional adequacy, and spatial connectivity of non-motorized travel corridors. The construct reflects the user’s cognitive appraisal of whether their immediate physical environment provides a viable, safe medium for utilitarian transport. It evaluates variables such as sidewalk prevalence, sidewalk maintenance (absence of cracks, even surfaces), access to off-road pedestrian/bicycle trails, and the accessibility of proximate destinations (e.g., local stores, libraries, recreational centers) within a reasonable walking radius.

Pedestrian Safety from Traffic and Roadway Hazards

Pedestrian safety captures the perceived severity of vehicular threats within the residential setting. Rooted in perceived hazard theories, this domain addresses traffic volume, perceived driver compliance with speed limits, the presence of speed-mitigating infrastructure, and pedestrian-controlled crossings. High scores on traffic danger reflect cognitive barriers that induce apprehension in youth and prompt risk-averse parental restrictions, suppressing outdoor mobility.

Personal Safety from Crime and Social Incivilities

This subscale captures the perceived threat of interpersonal victimization, crime exposure, and ambient disorder during day and night hours. It incorporates visual signs of neighborhood disorder (such as graffiti, discarded litter, poorly maintained or abandoned buildings, and unrestrained dogs), which serve as psychological cues of reduced collective efficacy and elevated personal vulnerability. Perceived crime acts as an affective deterrent, inhibiting outdoor active play and promoting home-bound sedentary pursuits.

Neighborhood Aesthetics and Environmental Quality

Aesthetic appeal assesses the visual, natural, and olfactory characteristics of the residential environment. Incorporating elements of environmental psychology and biophilia, this construct measures the presence of shade-providing tree canopies, visually engaging architecture, street cleanliness, and the absence of vehicular exhaust or offensive odors. High aesthetic ratings enhance the psychological pleasure associated with active leisure and pedestrian transport.

Home Physical Activity and Sedentary Environment

Operating at the immediate micro-level, this construct assesses the physical availability of active play equipment and spatial opportunities inside the domestic dwelling and its immediate perimeter. It inventories both low-cost sports gear (balls, jump ropes) and larger equipment (bicycles, basketball hoops, stationary exercise equipment), as well as the spatial adequacy of the yard or indoor rooms to support active gross-motor play.

Parental and Peer Social Support

Recognizing the foundational role of interpersonal networks, this dimension quantifies the frequency of direct parental modeling, verbal encouragement, co-participation, transportation logistics, and spectator involvement, as well as peer-level co-activity and peer encouragement. It reflects perceived relational encouragement within the individual’s proximal social system.

Public Parks, Playgrounds, and School Infrastructure

This domain captures the perceived proximity, cleanliness, safety, and equipment operability of structured institutional recreational assets. It assesses the availability and quality of park infrastructure (courts, playgrounds, open playing fields) and school grounds outside institutional instructional hours, measuring the spatial viability of community assets for structured and unstructured physical activity.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underlying the Active Where? Surveys integrates several complementary behavioral, spatial, and ecological models:

The Socio-Ecological Model of Physical Activity

The primary theoretical foundation is the Socio-Ecological Model formulated by Bronfenbrenner and adapted specifically for active living by Sallis, Cervero, Ascher, Henderson, Kraft, and Kerr (2006). This framework posits that human health behavior is determined by reciprocal interactions across multiple dynamic levels: individual (intrapersonal biological and psychological processes), micro-environmental (home, family dynamic, peer group), meso-environmental (neighborhood streetscapes, school grounds, municipal parks), and macro-environmental (zoning codes, transportation policies, regional urban form). The Active Where? Surveys capture the subjective micro- and meso-environmental layers that mediate between high-level urban policies and individual behavioral decisions.

Gibson’s Theory of Environmental Affordances

The operationalization of physical activity infrastructure reflects James J. Gibson’s Theory of Affordances. From an ecological psychology perspective, individuals perceive environmental features not merely as inert geometric forms, but in terms of their behavioral affordances—what they offer, provide, or furnish for action. For youth, a well-paved sidewalk “affords” rollerblading or skateboarding; a basketball hoop “affords” spontaneous shooting games; a street without crosswalks “affords” vehicular dominance and walking hazards. The Active Where? Surveys assess these perceived functional affordances within youth living spaces.

Social Cognitive Theory and Reciprocal Determinism

The instrument incorporates Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, specifically the principle of triadic reciprocal determinism, which models human functioning as a continuous interaction between personal cognitive factors, environmental influences, and behavioral patterns. Within this model, the availability of home sports equipment and parental supportive behaviors shape an adolescent’s self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control. These beliefs, when supported by an enabling physical environment (e.g., safe local parks, accessible footpaths), increase the likelihood of sustained physical activity participation.

Lawton’s Ecological Theory of Aging and Adaptation (Environmental Press)

Although initially developed in gerontology by Lawton and Nahemow, the Environmental Press Model applies directly to pediatric populations. The model states that an individual’s behavioral adaptation is a function of the balance between personal competence and environmental press (the demands, barriers, and hazards imposed by the physical context). Children and adolescents possess lower physical, navigational, and cognitive competence compared to adults. When environmental press is excessively high—such as in sprawling neighborhoods characterized by heavy vehicular traffic, lack of sidewalks, and high crime rates—youth behavioral adaptation fails, manifesting as restricted geographical range, heightened fear, and sedentary behavior.

7. Validity

The Active Where? Surveys have undergone comprehensive validity assessments, establishing robust construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity across heterogeneous demographic strata.

Construct and Content Validity

Content validity was established through an extensive, iterative formative phase. Researchers conducted in situ, qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and youth while actively traversing neighborhood environments and urban parks. This ensured that questionnaire items accurately reflected the vernacular, behavioral patterns, and perceptual salience of the target demographic. Expert panels comprising pediatricians, behavioral scientists, urban planners, and environmental epidemiologists evaluated early drafts, yielding strong content validity indices across developmental stages.

Criterion and Convergent Validity

Criterion and convergent validity have been evaluated by comparing survey reports against objective geographical measures and device-based behavioral assessments:

• Spatial Geocoding and GIS Alignment: Perceived walking times to commercial, service, and recreational destinations reported in Sections B, C, and D were compared with objective GIS network distances. Spearman rank-order correlations demonstrated moderate-to-strong correspondence ($r_s = .42$ to $.68, p < .001$) between subjective distance assessments and true street-network metrics (Grow et al., 2008).
• Objective Walkability Quadrants: Survey constructs were validated across four distinct neighborhood categories stratified by objective walkability indices and median household income (low walkability/low income; high walkability/low income; low walkability/high income; high walkability/high income). Participants residing in high-walkability quadrants consistently reported significantly higher scores for sidewalk connectivity, proximate retail destinations, and pedestrian infrastructure ($p < .01$) compared to counterparts in low-walkability zones.
• Accelerometry and Active Commuting: Multi-day accelerometer validation demonstrated that composite scores of favorable neighborhood walkability, access to parks, and low perceived traffic hazards were significantly associated with objectively recorded moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Youth reporting favorable pedestrian infrastructure and destinations within walking distance accrued an average of 12.4 to 18.2 additional minutes of daily MVPA relative to those residing in low-scoring environments (Durant et al., 2009). Sections V and W assessing active commuting were strongly concordant with travel log data and objective travel diaries ($r = .61, p < .001$).
• Objective Environmental Audits: Subscales evaluating street aesthetics, tree shade, sidewalk condition, and pedestrian crosswalks were validated against blinded researcher audits conducted with the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) and the Active Neighborhood Checklist. Percent agreement between resident perceptions and on-site field audits ranged from 72% to 89% (Forman et al., 2008).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was demonstrated by the scale’s ability to differentiate between distinct environmental typologies and behavioral domains. Subscales assessing neighborhood crime and traffic hazards demonstrated near-zero correlations with unrelated individual constructs (such as dietary awareness or home computer availability, $r < .08, p = ns$), confirming that the environmental barrier domains measure independent contextual phenomena rather than generalized negative affect or response bias.

8. Reliability

The Active Where? Surveys have been subjected to rigorous psychometric reliability evaluations. Test-retest reliability was systematically quantified across a two-week interval in a multi-city cohort comprising adolescents and parents from San Diego, Cincinnati, and Boston.

Test-Retest Reliability and Intraclass Correlations

Test-retest stability was evaluated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) for continuous/ordinal composite scores and Cohen’s kappa ($kappa$) or percent agreement for categorical items (Joe, Carlson, & Sallis):

• Neighborhood Infrastructure and Walkability: Sidewalk presence, sidewalk maintenance, and trail access exhibited high stability across both adolescent and parent cohorts, with ICCs ranging from .68 to .84. Items assessing walking distance to local stores and services exhibited ICCs between .62 and .79.
• Traffic and Safety Concerns: Items assessing street-level traffic volume, speeding vehicles, and safe street-crossing infrastructure demonstrated ICCs between .58 and .76. Measures assessing day and night personal safety from crime yielded test-retest ICCs of .64 to .82 for adolescents and .71 to .88 for parents.
• Home Equipment and Environment: The home physical activity equipment inventory (Sections P and items 17–22) demonstrated the highest temporal stability across the survey, with ICCs between .76 and .92, indicating that reports of physical equipment availability remain stable over short intervals.
• Park and Recreational Facility Attributes: Measures assessing park proximity, equipment functionality, and cleanliness demonstrated moderate-to-strong reliability, with ICCs ranging from .55 to .78.
• Categorical Stability: Categorical items (such as the presence of crosswalks, traffic signals, and specific sport equipment) exhibited Cohen’s kappa values ranging from $kappa = .48$ to $.81$, and overall percent agreement between 78% and 94% across both administrations.

Internal Consistency

Composite subscales developed via factor aggregation demonstrated satisfactory-to-high internal consistency reliability:

• Neighborhood Crime Safety Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha = .78 – .85$
• Traffic Hazard Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha = .71 – .79$
• Neighborhood Aesthetics Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha = .70 – .76$
• Pedestrian Infrastructure Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha = .74 – .82$
• Social Support for Physical Activity: Cronbach’s $lpha = .81 – .87$
• Park Environmental Quality Subscale: Cronbach’s $lpha = .72 – .80$

9. Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the Active Where? Surveys was evaluated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across the multi-site calibration and validation samples.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial EFAs utilizing principal axis factoring with promax (oblique) rotation were conducted separately on items assessing neighborhood perceptions, home attributes, and park environments. Oblique rotation was selected due to the theoretical expectation that distinct environmental assets (e.g., pedestrian infrastructure and neighborhood aesthetics) are correlated in urban design.

For neighborhood perceptions, scree plot examination and eigenvalues $> 1.0$ supported a clear four-factor structure accounting for approximately 56.4% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Crime and Safety Hazards (eigenvalue = 4.12; accounted for 24.2% of variance; item loadings: .62 to .84 across items measuring day/night safety, crime rates, graffiti, and trash).
• Factor 2: Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure (eigenvalue = 2.45; accounted for 14.4% of variance; item loadings: .58 to .81 across items measuring sidewalk presence, sidewalk maintenance, trail accessibility, and crosswalks).
• Factor 3: Neighborhood Aesthetics (eigenvalue = 1.78; accounted for 10.5% of variance; item loadings: .51 to .76 across items measuring shade trees, appealing architecture, and visual interest).
• Factor 4: Vehicular Traffic Density and Speed (eigenvalue = 1.24; accounted for 7.3% of variance; item loadings: .49 to .74 across items measuring traffic volume, speeding drivers, and exhaust fumes).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent CFAs performed on independent validation subsamples confirmed the multidimensional structure. Goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated acceptable to excellent model fit across both adolescent and parent data:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .934 (adolescent model), .948 (parent model)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .921 (adolescent model), .939 (parent model)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .046 (90% CI [.040, .052])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051

All standardized factor loadings were statistically significant ($p < .001$), with standardized coefficients exceeding .45 across all retained items, confirming the measurement integrity of the multi-level operationalization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Active Where? Surveys can be administered in clinical, public health, and epidemiological settings using standardized protocols:

• Instrument Structure: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire system divided into distinct contextual sections (Sections A through X).
• Target Respondent Formats:
  • Adolescent Survey: Self-completed by youth aged 12 to 19 years.
  • Parent-Adolescent Survey: Parallel survey completed by the custodial parent/caregiver of the participating adolescent.
  • Parent-Child Survey: Completed by the parent/caregiver of children aged 5 to 11 years (with child input on specific domestic preferences).
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 45 minutes for the full multi-section instrument; modular subscales can be extracted for brief assessments (10–15 minutes).
• Authentic Response Scales:
  • 4-point Agreement Scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Somewhat disagree, 3 = Somewhat agree, 4 = Strongly agree.
  • 5-point Frequency Scale: 1 = Never, 2 = Once or twice a month, 3 = Once a week, 4 = A couple times a week, 5 = Almost every day / Always.
  • Binary/Count Formats: Dichotomous (Yes = 1, No = 0), walking transit time bands (1–5 min, 6–10 min, 11–20 min, 21–30 min, 31+ min), or categorical count options.
• Scoring and Index Computation:
  • Domain composite scores are calculated by computing the mean of non-missing items within each validated subscale.
  • Reverse Scoring: Negative environmental features—such as Item 7 (crime rate), Item 8 (night crime safety), Item 9 (traffic volume), Item 10 (speeding drivers), Item 14 (litter), Item 15 (abandoned buildings), Item 16 (graffiti), and Item 46 (exhaust/odors)—must be reverse-coded prior to composite index calculation if computing a positive environmental favorability score, or retained as a distinct “Environmental Hazards/Barriers” index.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Active Where? Surveys were finalized and published between 2008 and 2009 under the leadership of Dr. Jacqueline Kerr, Dr. James F. Sallis, and their research collaborators. Development was funded by Active Living Research (ALR), a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

The instrument is placed in the public domain for research, academic, educational, and public health purposes. No royalties or licensing fees are required to use, reproduce, or adapt the surveys. Complete PDF copies of the adolescent, parent-adolescent, and parent-child instruments, along with comprehensive item-level reliability documentation, are openly accessible via Dr. James F. Sallis’s academic portal (drjamessallis.sdsu.edu). Users are requested to maintain formal scholarly attribution by citing the primary validation manuscripts (Durant et al., 2009; Forman et al., 2008; Grow et al., 2008).

12. References

• Durant, N., Kerr, J., Harris, S. K., Saelens, B. E., Norman, G. J., & Sallis, J. F. (2009). Environmental and safety barriers to youth physical activity in parks and streets: Reliability and validity. Pediatric Exercise Science, 21(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.21.1.86
• Forman, H., Kerr, J., Norman, G. J., Saelens, B. E., Durant, N. H., Harris, S. K., & Sallis, J. F. (2008). Reliability and validity of destination-specific barriers to walking and cycling for parents and adolescents. Preventive Medicine, 46(4), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.11.009
• Grow, H. M., Saelens, B. E., Kerr, J., Durant, N. H., Norman, G. J., & Sallis, J. F. (2008). Where are youth active? Roles of proximity, active transport, and built environment. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40(12), 2071–2079. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181817baa
• Joe, L., Carlson, J. A., & Sallis, J. F. (2008). Active Where? Individual item reliability statistics parent/child survey. Active Living Research, San Diego State University. https://drjamessallis.sdsu.edu/Documents/AW_item_reliability_ParentChild.pdf
• Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100

13. Items of the Scale