Restorative Component Measures

After Kaplan & Kaplan (1983) proposed restorative environment theory, the researchers have developed varies measures for the four components of restorative environments. In 1991, Hartig and colleagues published the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS). The PRS used coherence to replace extent item. Later, Hartig continually conducted a series of studies in order to develop the PRS. Overall, these studies yielded a two-factors model result: a General Restorativeness Factor（includes being away, fascination, and compatibility）and a Coherence Factor. Korpela et al. (1996、2001) after found a similar factor structure with favorite and unpleasant places. Korpela suggested that further improvements using alternative item combinations and analytic strategies should be needed to refine the PRS.
Laumann et al. subsequently developed of a measure of the five restorative components with 22 items in 2001. Laumann split Being Away items into two factors: a physical being away, novelty (e.g., I am in a different place than usual) and a psychological being away, escape (e.g., I am away from my daily obligations). This empirical finding is in keeping with Kaplan and Kaplan’s original definitions of Being Away referring to either physical or psychological aspects.
However, it is interesting that since Laumann’s RCS provide a reliable measure of the 4 restorative components of nature and city environments, why the scale is not popularly used? There are so many measure tools to measure the restorative environments, how do we choose the scale to apply in our studies?
Additionally, about the translation problems, I think that Lanumann made a good example. The RCS questionnaires were first translated from Norwegian into English by one individual, then translated back by another individual. Maybe we can employ this approach to modify our Chinese questionnaires. Thus, we can diminish a misunderstanding between the English and Chinese translations.

A new measurement tool?

Most of the research that tries to measure respodents' attentional restorative effect were based on the Attention Restorative Theory (ART). Many researchers have developed the measuring tools to measure people's attention restorative effect. The scales were tested by exposure respondents to different environments, especially natural vs. urban settings. The 4 features of ART which includes being away, fascination, extent (coherence), and compatibility were adopted as the categories of the measuring scale items like the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS). However, these items include several abstract descriptions that is hard to translate in to Chinese. The translation results come out ambiguous sentences which is hard to be understood by the respondents. Compare to the items in PRS, the attention restorative measurement scales developed by Staats 2003 are easier to translate. Instead of adopt the 4 features of the ART; the scale based its items on the recovery and reflection effect of the restorative environment. Although they carry different measuring items these items still measuring the restorative effect from the environment. Therefore, in our future studies that need to test in Chinese, the scale by Staats 2003 seems a better choice.