data, and Extent was not replicated in the library data. Extent may have been particularly difficult to capture with the library environment due to its typically small size and the similarities in use to the classroom.
As the factor analysis results using the playground data yielded both theoretically and statistically appropriate outcomes, these items were used to comprise the restorative components for both environments for further analysis. For both the playground and library data, internal consistency for the factors was considered acceptable for four of the five factors. Although alpha values of around .7 are considered optimal, lower values are expected and acceptable with scales containing few items (Anastasi and Urbina 1997). Results for the Extent factor, however, are particularly low. This is consistent with prior research, as the two Extent items that were retained were adapted from the PRS developed by Hartig et al. (1997b) who also reported similar issues (i.e., number of items, internal consistency) with the Extent factor. While additional Extent items were included in the initial pool of items, they did not perform well.
All the factors were positively associated. Consistent with prior research (Laumann et al. 2001), the factors correlated significantly across both environments except for Being Away- Physical and Fascination for the playground, the more natural environment. This result is, however, somewhat inconsistent with Laumann et al.’s finding, which occurred within the less natural (i.e., city) environment.
Environment DifferencesWhen comparing the two environments, the more natural environment of the playground yielded higher scores than the library across all factors as expected (Hartig et al. 1997a; Laumann et al. 2001), excluding Fascination, which scored lower. These relationships were all significant, indicating the PRCS-C was distinguishing between the two school environments on the basis of each of the five factors. The unexpected finding of Fascination scoring lower for the playground may be due to the environments in question. Perhaps school libraries, with computers and Internet access contain more opportunities for interesting elements to be considered than the different areas and play equipment of the school playground.
When the playground and library factor scores were compared by sex and age group, the overall results were replicated for girls and the older age group; that is, playground scored higher across restorative components excluding Fascination, which scored lower. Unlike girls and the older age group, however, results indicated that boys and the younger age group, reported that both environments contained interesting elements. It would appear girls and older children found the libraries of their school environments more interesting than their playgrounds and that this accounts for the lower playground Fascination score reported with the total sample. Although not highlighted as a potential sex nor age difference, it was proposed that Fascination could comprise physical stimuli or cognitive involvement (Kaplan, 1989). It can be argued the playground perhaps provides more physically focused elements whereas the library provides more cognitively focused elements of interest. While boys and younger children reported equal levels of Fascination, perhaps indicating divided interest in physical and cognitive stimuli, girls and older children may have indicated a preference for cognitive stimuli when they reported a higher Fascination score for the library. Although all children who participated in this study would have reached the concrete operational thought stage (Piaget 1980), perhaps older children have developed a preference or capacity for more cognitive stimuli than the younger children. The results reported here for both the total sample and by sex and age group indicate the PRCS-C is able to distinguish between environments, a key criterion for validity. Results also indicate possible sex and age differences when considering perceived restorative component levels of environ