Skip to main content

Table 1 Definitions and rating criteria for constructs assessed

From: Implementation contextual factors related to community-based active travel to school interventions: a mixed methods interview study

CFIR domain and construct

Interview question

Negative rating

Positive rating

1. Intervention characteristics: program source

How was the walking school bus program at your school started and who was involved?

External from the school

Internal to the school

2. Intervention characteristics: cost

What financial costs are associated with the walking school bus program?

Program has high costs

Program has low or no costs

3. Outer setting: student/family needs and resourcesa

What needs and preferences of students and parents were considered when planning the walking school bus program, and how did you know about these needs and preferences?

Needs and preferences not taken into account

Needs and preferences taken into account

4. Outer setting: student/family needs and resources - built environmenta

What features of the neighborhood environment around the school serve as barriers to or facilitators of the walking school buses success?

More barriers than facilitators observed in the built environment

More facilitators than barriers observed in the built environment

5. Inner setting: implementation climate

To what extent do teachers and staff at the school value and support the walking school bus program?

Teachers and school staff not supportive of the program

Teachers and school staff supportive of the program

6. Inner setting: relative priority

To what extent has the walking school bus program had to compete with other priorities or initiatives going on at the school?

walking school bus program has competition

walking school bus program does not have competition

7. Inner setting: organizational incentives and rewards

What kinds of incentives are there for students, parents, and those involved in operating the walking school bus program?

Minimal or no incentives for students, parents, and those involved in program operations

Sufficient incentives for students, parents, and those involved in program operations

8. Inner setting: leadership engagement

To what extent do leaders at the school, such as the principal, value and support the walking school bus program?

School leaders not supportive of the program

School leaders supportive of the program

9. Inner setting: available resources

What level of resources has the school dedicated to the walking school bus Program, and how have these been leveraged?

Minimal or no resources dedicated to the program

Sufficient resources dedicated to the program

10. Inner setting: access to knowledge and information

What kinds of information and materials about operating walking school bus programs (e.g., implementation guides, toolkits, trainings) have been available to you?

Minimal or no information resources available

Sufficient informational resources available

11. Process: planning

What kind of planning is involved in starting, operating, and maintaining the walking school bus?

Minimal or no planning

Sufficient amount of planning

12. Process: engaging route leadersb

Describe your process for working with route leaders; how do you recruit, retain, and coordinate with route leaders?

Minimal or no procedures working with route leaders

Sufficient procedures working with route leaders

13. Process: engaging students and parentsb

How do you recruit students to participate in the walking school bus and maintain their participation?

Minimal or no student recruitment strategy

Sufficient student recruitment strategy

14. Process: engaging external change agentsb,c

Is someone (or a team) outside your school helping you with planning, coordinating, or implementing the walking school bus program? If so, how?

No Outside organizational help

Outside organizational help

15. Process: reflecting and evaluating

What kind of data do you collect as you implement the walking school bus program?

Minimal or no data collected

Sufficient amount of data collected

  1. aThe CFIR Student/family needs and resources construct was split into two sub-constructs for the present study
  2. bThe CFIR Engaging construct was split into three sub-constructs for the present study
  3. cItem was only asked in the 7 low-sustainability and 7 high-sustainability programs that were coordinated by a parent or school member