Revista de Educación,
Motricidad e Investigación
Nature Physical Activity Satisfaction in Parents
of Preschoolers: Psychometric Properties of a
Questionnaire
Satisfacción con la actividad física en padres de preescolares:
Propiedades psicométricas del cuestionario
Jorge Rojo-Ramos
Physical Activity for Education, Performance and Health (PAEPH) Research Group,
Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Extremadura, 10003 Cáceres, Spain;
jorgerr@unex.es
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-7828
Irene Polo-Campos
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3298-1504
Carlos Mañanas-Iglesias
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2499-1473
Carmen Galán-Arroyo
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8750-0267
VOL. 21 (2023)
ISSN 2341-1473 pp. 27-44
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
Abstract:
Physical activity in nature is one of the major recom-
mendations prescribed by health professionals to bring
benefits in all areas, being satisfaction of doing it of the
main determinants to ensure that this is achieved. Howe-
ver, parenthood status may affect practice and levels of
satisfaction with physical activity. Therefore, the objective
of this study is to explore the psychometric properties
and factor structure of the Spanish version of the Physical
Activity Enjoyment Scale, that assesses satisfaction with
physical activity in the natural environment in parents of
preschoolers. Reliability testing, as well as exploratory
and confirmatory factor analyses, were conducted. The
findings revealed a single-factor structure made up of
16 items with high reliability and good and exceptional
goodness-of-fit values. Therefore, the instrument can
be considered as a free, easy-to-use and quick tool to
analyze the satisfaction levels of preschool parents when
it comes to physical activity in nature.
Keywords:
Physical activity; nature; validation; questionnaire; pa-
rents
Fecha de recepción: 15 de mayo de 2023
Resumen:
La actividad física en la naturaleza es una de las princi-
pales recomendaciones prescritas por los profesionales
de la salud para aportar beneficios en todos los ámbitos,
siendo la satisfacción de realizarla uno de los principales
determinantes para conseguirlo. Sin embargo, el estado
de paternidad puede afectar a su práctica y niveles de sa-
tisfacción. Por ello, el objetivo de este estudio es explorar
las propiedades psicométricas y estructura factorial de la
versión española de la Escala de Disfrute de la Actividad
Física, que evalúa la satisfacción con la actividad física en
el medio natural en padres de preescolares. Se realizaron
pruebas de fiabilidad y análisis factoriales exploratorios
y confirmatorios. Los resultados revelaron una estructura
monofactorial compuesta por 16 ítems con alta fiabilidad
y valores de bondad de ajuste buenos y excepcionales.
Por lo tanto, el instrumento puede considerarse una he-
rramienta gratuita, fácil de usar y rápida para analizar los
niveles de satisfacción de los padres de preescolares en
lo que se refiere a la actividad física en la naturaleza.
Palabras claves:
Actividad física; naturaleza; validación; cuestionario; pa-
dres
Fecha de aceptación: 7 de diciembre de 2023
Nature Physical Activity Satisfaction in Parents
of Preschoolers: Psychometric Properties of a
Questionnaire
Satisfacción con la actividad física en padres
de preescolares: Propiedades psicométricas
del cuestionario
Jorge Rojo-Ramos
Physical Activity for Education, Performance and Health (PAEPH) Re-
search Group, Faculty of Sports Sciences, University of Extremadura,
10003 Cáceres, Spain; jorgerr@unex.es
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6542-7828
Irene Polo-Campos
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3298-1504
Carlos Mañanas-Iglesias
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2499-1473
Carmen Galán-Arroyo
University of Extremadura
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8750-0267
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 29 ]
1. Introduction Urbanization is turning cities into centers of chronic, non-transmissible physical and mental illnes-
ses (Sundquist etal., 2004), making it one of the most significant global health issues of the twen-
ty-first century (Moore etal., 2003). Also, physical activity (PA) has been identified as a fundamental
tool to reduce the burden of chronic diseases and morbidity due to an inactive lifestyle, requiring
interventions that are effective in increasing PA in the general population (Wu etal., 2017). In this
context, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that individuals engage in at least
150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise per week, or 75 minutes of strenuous aerobic
exercise, or an equivalent combination of both (WHO, 2020), increasing the risk of cardiovascular
illnesses, type 2 diabetes, breast and colon cancer, as well as early death, if these recommenda-
tions are not followed. Therefore, research and policies pay considerable attention to the potential
of contact with natural environments to protect or enhance human health (Nilsson etal., 2011), as
this contact has been widely positively linked to well-being (Hartig etal., 2014). Previous studies
have examined the relationships between natural environments and PA and, interestingly, there
may be a synergy between the well-established physiological and psychological benefits of PA
and the restorative effects of contact with a natural environment (Thompson-Coon etal., 2011).
Consequently, nature PA has become one of the treatments most recommended by professionals
for prevent ill health or restore individual mental and physical fitness (Shanahan et al., 2019).
The advantages of PA in the outdoors, including gardening, hiking, and other outdoor pursuits,
have been thoroughly documented (Passmore & Howell, 2014). The impacts of PA in natural su-
rroundings have been shown in experimental research to affect biomarkers as well as self-repor-
ted stress, mood, and fatigue levels (Bowler etal., 2010; Ward Thompson etal., 2012). Similarly,
improvements in both attentional and cognitive capacities have been observed (Berman etal.,
2008, 2012). In addition, the initiatives to increase PA in natural spaces have been linked to impro-
vements in social networks as feelings of connectivity and community, a greater appreciation of
nature, improvements in self-esteem, and a path out of modern life (Pretty etal., 2007), observing
also additional benefits in comparison to those experienced indoors (Pretty etal., 2003). Moreo-
ver, people tend to engage in PA when they are in natural areas, exercising for longer periods of
time or more intensely (Joseph & Maddock, 2016). This relationship between the benefits found
and contact with nature was developed by Markevych etal. (2017), who explained three funda-
mental pathways leading to these positive associations: harm mitigation (such as reducing noise
and pollution), psychological recovery (such as improving attention and reducing stress), and skill
development (such as social cohesion and PA).
In this context, satisfaction has been identified as one of the main determinants in the maintenan-
ce of a behavior or habit (Rothman etal., 2004), being this assertion supported by several studies
focused on healthy habits (Dishman etal., 2010). A person’s level of satisfaction can be interpreted
as their own, favorable, cognitive evaluation of their life and all of its aspects, taking into account
their expectations, objectives, and goals that have been attained (Carrión etal., 2000). In this sen-
se, the regulation of satisfaction with a change in health behavior reflects a constant evaluation of
whether the benefits of the new behavior justify the effort (Leventhal etal., 2008). This implies that
regular PA’s behavioral, psychological, and physiological experiences play a significant role in de-
termining satisfaction (Rothman etal., 2004), whose improvement usually generates an increase in
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 30 ]
the participants’ PA levels (Fleig etal., 2011). For example, Baldwin and colleagues (Baldwin etal.,
2013) revealed that a range of distinct good experiences with PA, such as feeling like one is closer
to achieving one’s goal, are associated to everyday satisfaction.
Thus, assessing satisfaction with the performance of PA has become a major focus in the develo-
pment of the health knowledge area (Lemes etal., 2021). However, the scientific literature shows
certain deficits in the instruments that allow the assessment of satisfaction during PA in the natural
environment. For example, Baldwin etal. (2013) developed a scale to analyze the experiences and
satisfaction experienced by an inactive sample after exercise. However, this scale had only one
item out of the 25 that made up the instrument to analyze satisfaction, and the sample only consis-
ted of 116 people, which is characterized as insufficient. Other instruments, such as The Psycholo-
gical Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (PNSE) (Wilson etal., 2006), have excellent psychometric
properties in their validation in a university population. Although its focus of analysis is only on
psychological aspects when facing physical activity and not after carrying it out, furthermore, no
subsequent validations have been found in different population groups. Similarly, Cunningham
(2007) adapted different work-related questionnaires to assess the satisfaction of university stu-
dents participating in physical activity classes, but their high number of items together with the few
responses collected in the studies presented can be considered as excluding limitations. Conver-
sely, Kendzierski & DeCarlo (1991) developed and validated the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale
(PACES) based on different descriptions of the enjoyment of physical activity in previous literature
and discussions by experts in the field. They also conducted two different studies to validate the
scale, which was applied after different physical activities, thus reducing the initial 39 items to 18.
Subsequently, this scale has been validated and adapted to different populations, such as children
(Paxton etal., 2008) and adolescents (Motl etal., 2001), and translated into different languages
(Moreno etal., 2008; Teques etal., 2020).
Therefore, the aim of this study is to explore the psychometric properties and factor structure of
the Spanish version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (Moreno etal., 2008), that assesses
satisfaction with physical activity in the natural environment in parents of preschool students in
one of the Autonomous Communities of Spain (Extremadura). In this way, public and private ins-
titutions will be able to learn first-hand about parents’ satisfaction with PA in nature, so that PA
interventions in the natural environment can be developed and adapted in a manner that benefits
both parents and children.
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 31 ]
It was a snowball or chain sampling. In order to characterize the different parents of preschoolers
who performed PA in the natural environment, two initial items were proposed in reference to their
gender and age (Table 1).
TABLE 1
Frequency distribution of the sample (N = 280).
Variable Categories N %
Gender Male 101 36.1
Female 179 63.9
Age
Between 20 and 30 13 4.6
Between 30 and 40 163 58.2
Between 40 and 50 102 36.4
Over 50 20.8
Note: N: Number; %: Percentage.
Also, the Spanish version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) (Moreno etal., 2008)
questionnaire was utilized to gauge the level of satisfaction with PA. The instrument was adapted
to Spanish through back translation and was validated through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
showing excellent values for both validity and comprehensibility. Likewise, its external validity was
tested by correlating the final score of the instrument with the different dimensions of the Spanish
version of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (Murcia etal., 2007), which analyses
different forms of motivation established by self-determination theory (demotivation, external regu-
lation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic regulation), showing mean correla-
tions with 4 of them. The phrase “when I am active in nature (performing physical activity, physical
exercise, or playing a sport...)” is placed before each of the 16 parts that make up this instrument: 1)
I enjoy; 2) I get bored; 3) I don’t like it; 4) I find it enjoyable; 5) It’s not fun at all; 6) It gives me energy;
7) It depresses me; 8) It is very pleasant; 9) My body feels good; 10) I get something extra; 11) It is
very exciting; 12) It frustrates me; 13) It’s not interesting at all; 14) It gives me strong feelings; 15) I
feel good; and 16) I think I should be doing something else. It employs a Likert-type scale with va-
lues from 1 to 5, where 1 represents “total disagreement” and 5 represents “full agreement”. Nine of
the sixteen questions pertain to accepting physical exercise positively, whereas 7 refer to rejecting
PA negatively. The negative elements were reversed since the scale’s application results in a score
based on the sum of all the items, with 16 serving as the minimum value for a low level of enjoyment
of physical exercise and 80 serving as the greatest value for that activity.
It was chosen to create the sociodemographic and PACES data surveys using the Google Forms
program. It made it easier to cut costs, provide the questionnaires to the participants, and store the
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants and Instruments
2.2. Procedure
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 32 ]
participants’ answers in the same database (Anderson & Kanuka, 2003). The data was gathered be-
tween September and December of 2022.
In order to access the sample, the Department of Education and Employment of the Regional Gover-
nment of Extremadura’s database of public schools in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura
(Spain) was used (available at:http://estadisticaeducativa.educarex.es/?centros/ensenanzas/&cur-
so=17&ensenanza_centro=101200001 accessed on September 2022). Contact information was
chosen for centers offering the second stage of early childhood education (3 to 6 years). The early
childhood education teachers were then informed about the study and asked to collaborate throu-
gh email. The informed consent form, which needed to be signed by the participants (parents), was
issued to the schools with an interest in taking part. Likewise, the centers were provided with the
sample inclusion criteria to formalize the questionnaire: 1) having a preschool-age child; 2) perfor-
ming physical activity in nature at least 3 times a week for 30 minutes; and 3) having the technologi-
cal resources to access the online questionnaire.
The educational platform of the Regional Government of Extremadura (https://rayuela.educarex.
es/) was also used to inform parents of those centers that accepted to collaborate about the objec-
tive of the study and to provide a form that asked about different questions related to the inclusion
criteria. If the respondents met the inclusion criteria, the same message redirected them to the re-
search participation acceptance form, and later, to the informed consent. Once the parents agreed
to participate and signed the informed consent form, they were provided with the PACES ques-
tionnaire in electronic format by an URL, which also included the sociodemographic questions. The
average time to answer the questionnaire was about 7 minutes. Data were gathered between April
and May 2022.
Of the 400 parents initially contacted, only 100 of them met the inclusion criteria and responded to
the questionnaire, so the response rate was 25%. Then, it was decided to resend the email and call
the center notifying them of the study and the procedures for participating in it because the respon-
se rate was insufficient during the first month. Therefore, 200 more parents were contacted, of which
180 met the inclusion criteria and subsequently completed the questionnaire. As a result, the final
response rate was 47%.
The free statistical program FACTOR (v.10.10.02, Rovira I Virgili University: Tarragona, Spain) (Fe-
rrando & Lorenzo-Seva, 2017, p. 10) was used for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as well as
the Promin method (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2019) for factor extraction, taking into account the
ordinal character of the scale and of the information extracted from it using a Likert scale. Due to low
normality values (p < .001), the robust unweighted least squares (RULS) (Unkel & Trendafilov, 2010)
approach and polychoric correlation matrix (Morata-Ramírez & Holgado-Tello, 2013) were utilized
to define the factor model. Through the most effective application of parallel analysis (Hayton etal.,
2004), the appropriate number of dimensions was established. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and
Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were used as sampling adequacy criteria (Kang, 2013).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 33 ]
The software program AMOS v.26.0.0 was then used to do the CFA (IBM Corporation, Wexford, PA,
USA). The components with crossloads greater than 0.40, communalities lower than 0.30 and loads
lower than 0.60 were eliminated (Brown, 2015). Indicators were employed to gauge the model’s
goodness-of-fit, including: 1) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)(Shi etal., 2020);
2) the root mean square of residuals (RMSR) (DiStefano etal., 2018); 3) the comparative fit index (CFI)
(Bentler, 1990); 4) the non-normed fit index (NNFI) (Yadama & Pandey, 1995); 5) thechi-square per
degree of freedom ratio (CMIN/DF) (García-Santillán etal., 2012); and 6) a chi-squared probability
indicating sufficient nonsignificant results (p > .05) (Marcoulides, 1990). Additionally, reliability indi-
ces such as Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were employed to assess the questionnaire’s
final solution (Dunn etal., 2014).
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for each of the questionnaire items. The findings indicate that,
in general, participants tend to agree with the positive statements about nature activity, as reflected
in the high means, ranging from 4.15 to 4.84 on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. The variability of responses,
indicated by the standard deviations and variances, is relatively low for most of the items, implying a
consistency in participants’ responses. This pattern of responses suggests a predominantly positive
perception towards nature activity on the part of the participants.
TABLE 2
Descriptive statistics by item.
When I’m active in nature… Mean SD Variance
1. I enjoy 4.60 0.62 0.38
2. I get bored 4.71 0.68 0.47
3. I don’t like it 4.60 0.99 0.99
4. I find it enjoyable 4.64 0.64 0.41
5. It’s no fun at all 4.75 0.72 0.52
6. It gives me energy 4.28 1.04 1.08
7. It depresses m 4.84 0.55 0.30
8. It is very pleasant 4.65 0.68 0.47
9. My body feels good 4.71 0.63 0.39
10. I get something extra 4.39 0.92 0.86
11. It is very exciting 4.15 0.90 0.82
12. It frustrates me 4.63 0.70 0.49
13. It’s not interesting at all 4.78 0.59 0.35
14. It gives me strong feelings 4.43 0.87 0.76
15. I feel good 4.76 0.60 0.36
16. I think I should be doing something else 4.44 0.87 0.76
Note: SD = Standard Deviation. Each score obtained is based on a Likert scale (1–5): 1 is “Strongly disagree” and 5 “Strongly agree”.
With the help of the explained variance based on eigenvalues (Steger, 2006) (Table 3) and the relia-
bility of expected a posteriori scores (EAP) (Zitzmann & Helm, 2021), the RULS approach was able to
identify a monofactorial structure for the questionnaire.
3. Results
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 34 ]
TABLE 3
Eigenvalue-based explained variance, variance proportion and EAP reliability.
Variable Eigenvalue Proportion of Variance EAP Reliability
1 8.43 0.52
0.952
2 1.22 0.07
3 1.04 0.06
4 0.96 0.06
5 0.81 0.05
6 0.62 0.03
7 0.56 0.03
8 0.51 0.03
9 0.45 0.02
10 0.34 0.02
11 0.28 0.01
12 0.25 0.01
13 0.17 0.01
14 0.14 <0.01
15 0.09 <0.01
16 0.04 <0.01
Due to the one-dimensional nature, no rotation technique was chosen. The sampling adequacy in-
dicators that produced positive results (KMO test = 0.791 and Bartlett test = 3141.1; df = 120; p =
.000) were used to examine the feasibility of the EFA. The loading matrix for sixteen elements and
one factor is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Loading matrix extracted from EFA.
When I’m active in nature… Factor
1. I enjoy 0.848
2. I get bored 0.703
3. I don’t like it 0.814
4. I find it enjoyable 0.835
5. It’s no fun at all 0.693
6. It gives me energy 0.890
7. It depresses me 0.648
8. It is very pleasant 0.685
9. My body feels good 0.649
10. I get something extra 0.533
11. It is very exciting 0.725
12. It frustrates me 0.718
13. It’s not interesting at all 0.626
14. It gives me strong feelings 0.542
15. I feel good 0.530
16. I think I should be doing something else 0.731
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 35 ]
Because no problematic items were detected, a one-factor, 16-item structure was extracted from the
EFA. The polychoric correlation matrix that describes the make-up of the questionnaire is shown in
Table 5.
TABLE 5
Polychoric correlation matrix.
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 1
2 0.70 1
3 0.69 0.59 1
4 0.76 0.66 0.77 1
5 0.58 0.36 0.62 0.63 1
6 0.78 0.64 0.70 0.80 0.70 1
7 0.55 0.46 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.64 1
8 0.64 0.48 0.51 0.49 0.33 0.57 0.43 1
9 0.53 0.44 0.56 0.43 0.38 0.42 0.51 0.64 1
10 0.37 0.53 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.46 0.44 0.28 0.48 1
11 0.58 0.32 0.58 0.60 0.60 0.69 0.47 0.49 0.50 0.41 1
12 0.52 0.57 0.60 0.59 0.39 0.64 0.33 0.51 0.50 0.43 0.46 1
13 0.58 0.34 0.44 0.37 0.49 0.53 0.45 0.44 0.36 0.54 0.43 0.54 1
14 0.44 0.27 0.35 0.45 00.46 0.36 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.42 0.44 0.39 0.55 1
15 0.38 0.36 0.46 0.47 0.36 0.47 0.31 0.38 0.25 0.11 0.37 0.48 0.21 0.40 1
16 0.54 0.52 0.64 0.61 0.41 0.64 0.35 0.61 0.52 0.31 0.56 0.54 0.38 0.42 0.53 1
Figure 1 depicts the questionnaire’s final structure, which consists of 16 items all encompassed in
a single factor. It displays the following values, from left to right: (1) correlation between factors; (2)
standardized regression weights; (3) squared multiple correlations of each variable; and (4) correla-
tions between exogenous variables (tables).
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 36 ]
Figure 1. Factor structure of the questionnaire.
Table 6 displays the goodness-of-fit indices for the scale after the CFAs (Sun, 2005), showing all of
them an excellent fit between the data and the model (Maydeu-Olivares etal., 2017). The nonsigni-
ficant values contributed to the outstanding chi-squared probability. Additionally, the RMSEA was
within the optimal range (0.010-0.050), and the RMSR, at less than 0.08, qualified as accurate. The
CMIN/DF index also exhibited excellent values given that it must be less than 2 to be an acceptable
model fit. NNFI and CFI values greater than 0.9 demonstrated a good fit to the model.
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 37 ]
TABLE 6
Goodness-of-fit indices extracted from the CFA.
Indices Value
RMSEA 0.048
RMSR 0.027
CFI 0.951
NNFI 0.904
CMIN/DF 1.930
Ρ (χ2) 0.907
Table 7 describes the reliability indices of the questionnaire through Cronbach’s Alpha, McDonald’s
Omega and explained variance.
TABLE 7
Questionnaire reliability.
Indicator Value
Cronbach’s Alpha 0.89
McDonald’s Omega 0.89
Explained Variance 7.98
This research aims to provide a valid and reliable tool to assess the satisfaction of parents to carry
out PA in the natural environment, to know how the condition of parenthood affects this healthy ha-
bit. The results reported a final monofactorial structure composed of 16 items. This instrument also
reported excellent goodness-of-fit indices and satisfactory internal consistency values. Compared to
the initial study (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991), the results are very similar in terms of internal consis-
tency (Cronbach’s alpha = .93), however, the sample studied was only 60 people and the question-
naire had 2 more items than the current one. These results are consistent with those presented later
by Crocker etal. (1995) who conducted a factor analysis of the scale in adolescents participating
in summer sports camps, keeping the same number of items in the instrument and finding similar
internal consistency values, but limited goodness-of-fit indices after CFA. Similarly, Motl etal. (2001)
adapted and validated this scale in more than 1000 adolescents involved in exercise programs wi-
thin the educational context, being the first to reduce the scale to 16 items and assessing the pos-
sible differences between a bifactorial or monofactorial structure. The results showed that although
the bifactor structure reported excellent values, they were greatly improved by the monofactorial
structure of the questionnaire. In this sense, (Moore etal., 2009) who replicated the previous study,
found the same results in favor of the single-factor structure when exploring the psychometric pro-
perties of the scale in children. By contrast, the CFA carried out by Latorre-Román etal. (2014), found
4. Discussion
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 38 ]
a bifactorial structure composed of 16 items for the PACES scale in asthmatic children participating
in PA therapy programs.
After the initial success of the scale, several international research groups focused their efforts on
adapting the instrument to their native languages, finding results that differed from those of this
study and from those reported in the scientific literature. Carraro etal. (2008), carried out the adap-
tation of this tool to the Italian language in 6000 adolescents, exploring the composition of 16 items
and housed in a bifactorial structure. However, the internal consistency values were not as good
as in previous research (0.78-0.88) and the goodness-of-fit indices were at the limit of what was re-
commended by experts. Following this trend, Moreno etal. (2008) adapted the 16-item scale to the
Spanish language in a sample of adolescents and adults. This research found very similar results to
the present study through factor analysis, yielding a 16-item scale with a single-factor structure and
excellent goodness-of-fit indicators. Similarly, Alves etal. (2019) carried out the translation, adap-
tation and reproducibility of the PACES scale into Portuguese, establishing satisfactory reliability
values without being able to perform a validation by confirmatory analysis due to the sample size.
Subsequently, the experts determined the need to reduce the domain of analysis of the instrument,
resulting in different reduced versions of the questionnaire. In this sense, Mullen etal. (2011) were
the first to reduce the scale to 8 items in order to make it comprehensible to different groups of
older adults. This research found excellent values for both reliability and goodness-of-fit indicators,
even confirming the invariance of the instrument across different groups and assessment times (lon-
gitudinal invariance). To the same extent, Teques etal. (2020) validated this reduced version of 8
items in Portuguese adults from different fitness centers, finding almost identical results as the pre-
vious study. Rodrigues etal. (2021) went a step further, showing that this reduced version of 8 items
showed better psychometric properties when divided into 2 factors and demonstrating its invarian-
ce when comparing responses in both genders in Portuguese adults belonging to different fitness
centers.
The study has certain limitations. First, the results obtained from convenience sampling should be
interpreted with caution. Next, the different participants who answered the questionnaire all resided
in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura (Spain), so there may be certain sociodemographic
or cultural variables that influence the scores. Similarly, the PA levels of the parents of the preschoo-
lers were not explored. Also, direct data collection techniques, such as in-person interviews, which
provide more accurate and dependable results than telephone or internet surveys, were not used in
this study. Finally, this research is characterized by its preliminary nature, since instrument validation
is a process that takes times to develop.
As future lines of research, it is clear that the validation of the questionnaire should be extended to
the entire national territory. This will make it possible to analyze whether there are socio-demogra-
phic characteristics of both parents and children that influence the levels of satisfaction with PA in the
natural environment (Gomez-Baya etal., 2018). In addition, broadening the age range of children
may be relevant in order to understand from what age they influence parental satisfaction. It would
also be interesting to explore the levels of satisfaction when both parents and children engage in PA
4.1. Limitations and Future Lines of Research
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 39 ]
in nature together, as previous studies have indicated that certain types of interventions are more
effective when both parents and children are involved (Ling etal., 2016).
The current research analyses the psychometric properties, validity and reliability of a questionnaire
to determine the satisfaction of parents of preschool children with PA in the natural environment.
The results yielded a single-factor structure composed of 16 items, with excellent goodness-of-fit
indices and good reliability indicators. Therefore, this scale can be considered as a useful tool for
the purpose of assessing parents’ satisfaction with PA in nature. In this way, public and private ins-
titutions will be able to design PA programs that satisfy both parents and children, increasing their
health levels, their PA levels and different social and affective capacities.
Conceptualization, J.R.-R.; Formal analysis, C.M.-I.; Investigation, J. R.-R.; Methodology, I.P.-C. and
C.G.-A.; Resources, C.M.-I.; Software, J.R.-R.; Supervision, C.G.-A.; Validation, I.P.-C. and C.M.-I.; Wri-
ting – original draft, J.R.-R.; Writing – review & editing, J.R.-R. and C.G.-A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no external funding.
The use of these data did not require approval from an accredited ethics committee, as they are
not covered by data protection principles, i.e., they are non-identifiable, anonymous data collected
through an anonymous survey for teachers. In addition, based on Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on 27 April 2016 on the protection of individuals concer-
ning the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (which entered into
force on 25 May 2016 and has been compulsory since 25 May 2018), data protection principles do
not need to be applied to anonymous information (i.e., information related to an identifiable natural
person, nor to data of a subject that is not, or is no longer, identifiable). Consequently, the Regulation
does not affect the processing of our information. Even for statistical or research purposes, its use
does not require the approval of an accredited ethics committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The datasets are available through the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Alves, E. D., Panissa, V. L. G., Barros, B. J., Franchini, E., & Takito, M. Y. (2019). Translation, adap-
tation, and reproducibility of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) and Feeling Scale
to Brazilian Portuguese. Sport Sciences for Health, 15(2), 329-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11332-018-0516-4
Anderson, T., & Kanuka, H. (2003). E-research: Methods, strategies, and issues (Nachdr.). Allyn and
Bacon.
5. Conclusions
6. Author Contributions
7. Funding
8. Institutional Review Board Statement
9. Informed Consent Statement
10. Data Availability Statement
11. Conflicts of Interest
12. References
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 40 ]
Baldwin, A. S., Baldwin, S. A., Loehr, V. G., Kangas, J. L., & Frierson, G. M. (2013). Elucidating satis-
faction with physical activity: An examination of the day-to-day associations between experienc-
es with physical activity and satisfaction during physical activity initiation. Psychology & Health,
28(12), 1424-1441. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.822078
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-
246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature.
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., Kaplan, S., Sherdell, L.,
Gotlib, I. H., & Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individ-
uals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jad.2012.03.012
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for
the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (Second edition). The Guilford
Press.
Carraro, A., Young, M. C., & Robazza, C. (2008). A contribution to the validation of the physical activ-
ity enjoyment scale in an Italian sample. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
36(7), 911-918. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.7.911
Carrión, A. C., Mañes, R. J. M., & Sala, F. G. (2000). Estudio de la satisfacción personal según la edad
de las personas. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 16(2), Art. 2.
Crocker, P. R. E., Bouffard, M., & Gessaroli, M. E. (1995). Measuring Enjoyment in Youth Sport Settings:
A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. Journal of Sport and Ex-
Cunningham, G. B. (2007). Development of the Physical Activity Class Satisfaction Questionnaire
(PACSQ). Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 11(3), 161-176. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10913670701326443
Dishman, R. K., Vandenberg, R. J., Motl, R. W., Wilson, M. G., & DeJoy, D. M. (2010). Dose relations
between goal setting, theory-based correlates of goal setting and increases in physical activity
during a workplace trial. Health Education Research, 25(4), 620-631. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/
cyp042
DiStefano, C., Liu, J., Jiang, N., & Shi, D. (2018). Examination of the weighted root mean square resid-
ual: Evidence for trustworthiness? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(3),
453-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the per-
vasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399-412.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future
directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236-240. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 41 ]
Fleig, L., Lippke, S., Pomp, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2011). Exercise maintenance after rehabilitation: How
experience can make a difference. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(3), 293-299. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.01.003
García-Santillán, A., Escalera-Chávez, M. E., & Córdova-Rangel, A. (2012). Variables to measure in-
teraction among mathematics and computer through structural equation modeling. Journal of
Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, 2(3), 51-67.
Gomez-Baya, D., R. Mendoza, R., & Tomico, A. (2018). The prospective relationship of sport and phys-
ical activity with life satisfaction after a one-year follow-up: An examination of gender differences
during mid-adolescence. Cuadernos de Psicología Del Deporte, 18(2), 169-186.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public
Health, 35(1), 207-228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor anal-
ysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191-205. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1094428104263675
Joseph, R. P., & Maddock, J. E. (2016). Observational Park-based physical activity studies: A sys-
tematic review of the literature. Preventive Medicine, 89, 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2016.06.016
Kang, H. (2013). A Guide on the Use of Factor Analysis in the Assessment of Construct Validity. Jour-
Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. J. (1991). Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: Two Validation Studies.
Latorre-Román, P. Á., García-Pinillos, F., Navarro-Martínez, A. V., & Izquierdo-Rus, T. (2014). Validity
and reliability of Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale questionnaire (PACES) in children with asthma.
Journal of Asthma, 51(6), 633-638. https://doi.org/10.3109/02770903.2014.898773
Lemes, V. B., Araujo Gaya, A. C., Brand, C., Dias, A. F., Cristi-Montero, C., Mota, J., & Gaya, A. R.
(2021). Associations among psychological satisfaction in physical education, sports practice, and
health indicators with physical activity: Direct and indirect ways in a structural equation model
proposal. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 8(4), 246-252. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.11.004
Leventhal, H., Weinman, J., Leventhal, E. A., & Phillips, L. A. (2008). Health Psychology: The Search for
Pathways between Behavior and Health. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 477-505. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093643
Ling, J., Robbins, L. B., & Wen, F. (2016). Interventions to prevent and manage overweight or obesity
in preschool children: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 53, 270-289.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.10.017
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). Robust Promin: A method for diagonally weighted factor
rotation. Liberabit: Revista Peruana de Psicología, 25(1), 99-106. https://doi.org/10.24265/libera-
bit.2019.v25n1.08
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 42 ]
Marcoulides, G. A. (1990). Evaluation of Confirmatory Factor Analytic and Structural Equation Models
Using Goodness-of-Fit Indices. Psychological Reports, 67(2), 669-670. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1990.67.2.669
Markevych, I., Schoierer, J., Hartig, T., Chudnovsky, A., Hystad, P., Dzhambov, A. M., de Vries, S., Trigue-
ro-Mas, M., Brauer, M., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Lupp, G., Richardson, E. A., Astell-Burt, T., Dimitrova,
D., Feng, X., Sadeh, M., Standl, M., Heinrich, J., & Fuertes, E. (2017). Exploring pathways linking
greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158,
301-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028
Maydeu-Olivares, A., Fairchild, A. J., & Hall, A. G. (2017). Goodness of Fit in Item Factor Analysis:
Effect of the Number of Response Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 24(4), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1289816
Moore, J. B., Yin, Z., Hanes, J., Duda, J., Gutin, B., & Barbeau, P. (2009). Measuring Enjoyment of Phys-
ical Activity in Children: Validation of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale. Journal of Applied
Moore, M., Gould, P., & Keary, B. S. (2003). Global urbanization and impact on health. International
4639-00223
Morata-Ramírez, M. de los Á., & Holgado-Tello, F. P. (2013). Construct Validity of Likert Scales through
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: A Simulation Study Comparing Different Methods of Estimation
Based on Pearson and Polychoric Correlations. International Journal of Social Science Studies,
1(1), p54-61. https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v1i1.27
Moreno, J.-A., González-Cutre, D., Martínez, C., Alonso, N., & López, M. (2008). Psychometric proper-
ties of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) in the Spanish context. Studies in Psychology,
29(2), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.1174/021093908784485093
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G., & Pate, R. R. (2001). Measuring en-
joyment of physical activity in adolescent girls. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(2),
110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00326-9
Mullen, S. P., Olson, E. A., Phillips, S. M., Szabo, A. N., Wójcicki, T. R., Mailey, E. L., Gothe, N. P., Fanning,
J. T., Kramer, A. F., & McAuley, E. (2011). Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults:
Invariance of the physical activity enjoyment scale (paces) across groups and time. Internation-
5868-8-103
Murcia, J. a. M., Gimeno, E. C., & Camacho, A. M. (2007). Measuring self-determination motivation
in a physical fitness setting: Validation of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2
(BREQ-2) in a Spanish sample. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 47(3), 366-374.
Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., de Vries, S., Seeland, K., & Schipperijn, J. (2011). Forests,
Trees and Human Health. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1
World Health Organization. (25 November 2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary
behaviour. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 43 ]
Passmore, H.-A., & Howell, A. (2014). Nature involvement increases hedonic and eudaimonic
eco.2014.0023
Paxton, R. J., Nigg, C., Motl, R. W., Yamashita, M., Chung, R., Battista, J., & Chang, J. (2008). Physical
Activity Enjoyment Scale Short Form—Does It Fit for Children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 79(3), 423-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2008.10599508
Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Sellens, M. H., & Pretty, C. G. (2003). Green Exercise: Complementary Roles of
Nature, Exercise and Diet in Physical and Emotional Well-Being and Implications for Public Health
Policy. Essex: Centre for Environment and Society University of Essex.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N., & Griffin, M. (2007). Green exercise in the UK
countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and
planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 211-231. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09640560601156466
Rodrigues, F., Forte, P., Teixeira, D. S., Cid, L., & Monteiro, D. (2021). The Physical Activity Enjoyment
Scale (Paces) as a Two-Dimensional Scale: Exploratory and Invariance Analysis. Montenegrin Jour-
nal of Sports Science and Medicine, 10(1), 61-66. https://doi.org/10.26773/mjssm.210309
Rothman, A. J., Baldwin, A., & Hertel, A. (2004). Self-regulation and behavior change: Disentangling
behavioral initiation and behavioral maintenance: Research, Theory, and Applications. En K. Vohs
& R. Baumeister (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp.
130-148). Guilford Press.
Shanahan, D. F., Astell–Burt, T., Barber, E. A., Brymer, E., Cox, D. T., Dean, J., ... & Gaston, K. J. (2019).
Nature–based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: The purpose, the people and the
outcomes. Sports, 7(6), 141. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7060141
Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Rosseel, Y. (2020). Assessing Fit in Ordinal Factor Analysis Models:
SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1-15. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434
Steger, M. F. (2006). An Illustration of Issues in Factor Extraction and Identification of Dimensionality
in Psychological Assessment Data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(3), 263-272. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_03
Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development, 37(4), 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909
764
Sundquist, K., Frank, G., & Sundquist, J. (2004). Urbanisation and incidence of psychosis and de-
pression: Follow-up study of 4.4 million women and men in Sweden. British Journal of Psychiatry,
184(4), 293-298. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.184.4.293
Teques, P., Calmeiro, L., Silva, C., & Borrego, C. (2020). Validation and adaptation of the Physical Ac-
tivity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) in fitness group exercisers. Journal of Sport and Health Science,
9(4), 352-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2017.09.010
Thompson-Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear, R., Barton, J., & Depledge, M. H. (2011). Does Partic-
ipating in Physical Activity in Outdoor Natural Environments Have a Greater Effect on Physical and
https://doi.org/10.33776/remo.vi21.7742
[ 44 ]
Mental Wellbeing than Physical Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(5), 1761-1772. https://doi.org/10.1021/es102947t
Unkel, S., & Trendafilov, N. T. (2010). A majorization algorithm for simultaneous parameter estimation
in robust exploratory factor analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 54(12), 3348-3358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.02.003
Ward-Thompson, C., Roe, J., Aspinall, P., Mitchell, R., Clow, A., & Miller, D. (2012). More green space is
linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape
Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, T. C. (2006). The Psychological Need Satisfaction in
Exercise Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28(3), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.28.3.231
Wu, X. Y., Han, L. H., Zhang, J. H., Luo, S., Hu, J. W., & Sun, K. (2017). The influence of physical activity,
sedentary behavior on health-related quality of life among the general population of children and
adolescents: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0187668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0187668
Yadama, G. N., & Pandey, S. (1995). Effect of Sample Size on Goodness-Fit of-Fit Indices in Structur-
J079v20n03_03
Zitzmann, S., & Helm, C. (2021). Multilevel Analysis of Mediation, Moderation, and Nonlinear Ef-
fects in Small Samples, Using Expected a Posteriori Estimates of Factor Scores. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(4), 529-546. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1
855076
