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
. 2009 Jul 20:6:44.
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-44.

Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs

Affiliations

Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs

Kelly R Evenson et al. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. .

Abstract

Background: Measures to assess neighborhood environments are needed to better understand the salient features that may enhance outdoor physical activities, such as walking and bicycling for transport or leisure. The purpose of this study was to derive constructs to describe neighborhoods using both primary (neighborhood audit) and secondary (geographic information systems) data.

Methods: We collected detailed information on 10,770 road segments using an audit and secondary data. The road segment sample was randomly split into an exploratory (60%) and validation sample (40%) for cross-validation. Using the exploratory sample (n = 6,388), seven a priori constructs were assessed separately (functionality, safety, aesthetics, destinations, incivilities, territorality, social spaces) by urbanicity using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Additionally, new a posteriori constructs were derived using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). For cross-validation (n = 4,382), we tested factor loadings, thresholds, correlated errors, and correlations among a posteriori constructs between the two subsamples. Two-week test-retest reliability of the final constructs using a subsample of road segments (n = 464) was examined using Spearman correlation coefficients.

Results: CFA indicated the a priori constructs did not hold in this geographic area, with the exception of physical incivilities. Therefore, we used EFA to derive a four-factor solution on the exploratory sample: arterial or thoroughfare, walkable neighborhood, physical incivilities, and decoration. Using CFA on the validation sample, the internal validity for these a posteriori constructs was high (range 0.43 to 0.73) and the fit was acceptable. Spearman correlations indicated the arterial or thoroughfare factor displayed near perfect reliability in both urban and rural segments (r = 0.96). Both the physical incivilities factor and the walkable neighborhood factor had substantial to near perfect reliability in both urban and rural segments (r = 0.77 to 0.78 and r = 0.79 to 0.82, respectively). The decoration factor displayed moderate reliability in urban segments (r = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38-0.60) and lower reliability in rural segments (r = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.25-0.52).

Conclusion: The results of our analyses yielded four reliably and objectively measured constructs that will be used to explore associations with physical activity in urban and rural North Carolina. These constructs should be explored in other geographic areas to confirm their usefulness elsewhere.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A priori constructs to assess the neighborhood environment from Caughy et al (2001), with corresponding items from the PIN3 Neighborhood Audit instrument (item numbers specified in parentheses) or from GIS measures.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A priori constructs to assess the neighborhood environment from Pikora et al (2002), with corresponding items from the PIN3 Neighborhood Audit instrument (item numbers specified in parentheses) or from GIS measures.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sisson SB, Katzmarzyk PT. International prevalence of physical activity in youth and adults. Obes Rev. 2008;9:606–614. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00506.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guthold R, Ono T, Strong KL, Chatterji S, Morabia A. Worldwide variability in physical inactivity a 51-country survey. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:486–494. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.02.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brownson RC, Kelly CM, Eyler AA, Carnoske C, Grost L, Handy SL, Maddock JE, Pluto D, Ritacco BA, Sallis JF, et al. Environmental and policy approaches for promoting physical activity in the United States: a research agenda. J Physical Activity Health. 2008;5:488–503. - PubMed
    1. McLeroy K, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educa Q. 1988;15:351–377. - PubMed
    1. Sallis J, Owen N. Ecological models. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editor. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1997. pp. 403–424.