Development and evaluation of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS)

BACKGROUND: Teachers are recognized as 'key agents' for the delivery of physical activity programs and policies in schools. The aim of our study was to develop and evaluate a tool to assess teachers' capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver school-based physical activity interventions.

METHODS: The development and evaluation of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation to deliver Physical Activity in School Scale (COM-PASS) involved three phases. In Phase 1, we invited academic experts to participate in a Delphi study to rate, provide recommendations, and achieve consensus on questionnaire items that were based on the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model. Each item was ranked on the degree to which it matched the content of the COM-B model, using a 5-point scale ranging from '1 = Poor match' to '5 = Excellent match'. In Phase 2, we interviewed primary and secondary school teachers using a 'think-aloud' approach to assess their understanding of the items. In Phase 3, teachers (n = 196) completed the COM-PASS to assess structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

RESULTS: Thirty-eight academic experts from 14 countries completed three rounds of the Delphi study. In the first round, items had an average rating score of 4.04, in the second round 4.51, and in the third (final) round 4.78. The final tool included 14 items, which related to the six constructs of the COM-B model: physical capability, psychological capability, physical opportunity, social opportunity, reflective motivation, and automatic motivation. In Phase 2, ten teachers shared their interpretation of COM-PASS via a 20-min interview, which resulted in minor changes. In Phase 3, CFA of the 3-factor model (i.e., capability, opportunity, and motivation) revealed an adequate fit to the data (χ 2  = 122.6, p < .001, CFI = .945, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .066). The internal consistencies of the three subscale scores were acceptable (i.e., capability: α = .75, opportunity: α = .75, motivation: α = .81).

CONCLUSION: COM-PASS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing teachers' capability, opportunity, and motivation to deliver physical activity interventions in schools. Further studies examining additional psychometric properties of the COM-PASS are warranted.