Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 May;64(3):415-24.
doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbn041. Epub 2009 Mar 2.

Neighborhood-level cohesion and disorder: measurement and validation in two older adult urban populations

Kathleen A Cagney  1 , Thomas A Glass, Kimberly A Skarupski, Lisa L Barnes, Brian S Schwartz, Carlos F Mendes de Leon
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Neighborhood-level cohesion and disorder: measurement and validation in two older adult urban populations

Kathleen A Cagney et al. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2009 May.

Abstract

Objectives: Drawing from collective efficacy and social disorganization theories, we developed and validated measures of neighborhood-level social processes.

Methods: Data came from 2 large, population-based cohort studies of urban-dwelling older adults, the Chicago Neighborhood and Disability Study (CNDS, n = 3,882) and the Baltimore Memory Study (BMS, n = 1,140). Data on neighborhood social processes were collected from residents using a standardized instrument identical in the 2 studies. We used confirmatory factor analysis and descriptive statistics to explore reliability and validity of the neighborhood-level measures.

Results: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated 2 latent factors: social cohesion and exchange (i.e., observations of and interactions with neighbors) and social and physical disorder (i.e., neighborhood problems and unsafe conditions). Neighborhood-level measures of cohesion and disorder showed moderate to high levels of internal consistency (alphas = .78 and .85 in CNDS and .60 and .88 in BMS). Inter-resident agreements were low (intra-neighborhood correlation coefficients = .08 and .11 in CNDS and .05 and .33 in BMS). Cohesion showed a modest, positive association with a composite measure of neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES). Disorder showed a strong, negative association with neighborhood SES.

Conclusions: Findings provide initial evidence of the reliability and construct validity of these neighborhood-level social process measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Measurement model of neighborhood cohesion and disorder. WRMR = Weighted Root Mean Square Residual.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Chicago Neighborhood and Disability Study neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) and social process measures.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Baltimore Memory Study neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) and social process measures.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Balfour JL, Kaplan GA. Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: Evidence from the Alameda County Study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002;155:507–515. - PubMed
    1. Berkman LF, Glass T. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, editors. Social epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 137–173.
    1. Bienias JL, Beckett LA, Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Evans DA. Design of the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP) Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. 2003;5:349–355. - PubMed
    1. Brooks-Gunn J, Duncan GJ, Klebanov PK, Sealand N. Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development. American Journal of Sociology. 1993;99:353–395.
    1. Browning CR, Cagney KA. Neighborhood structural disadvantage, collective efficacy, and self-rated physical health in an urban setting. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2002;43:383–399. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms