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