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