Table 4.
Results of linear regression analyses: associations between road environment measures and change in MVPA between T1 and T2 among adolescents
| ΔMVPA (min) T1 to T2 road characteristics | Boys | Girls | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ba | Adjustedb beta | Ba | Adjustedb beta | |
| ΔMVPA before school | ||||
| Total length of local roads (km) | – | – | 0.21** | 0.20* |
| No. of intersections | – | – | 0.03** | Not enteredc |
| No. of traffic/pedestrian lights | – | – | 0.28* | 0.08 |
| ΔMVPA after school | ||||
| Local road index (ratio) | – | – | −17.66** | −0.17** |
| Reside on cul-de-sac (yes/no) | – | – | −2.99* | −0.10 |
| No. of speed humps | 0.23* | – | – | – |
| ΔMVPA in evening | ||||
| No. of speed humps | – | – | 0.15* | 0.09 |
| No. of gates/barriers | – | – | 1.05** | 0.11 |
| ΔMVPA nonschool hours | ||||
| Total length of local roads (km) | – | – | 0.49** | 0.14 |
| Local road index (ratio) | – | – | −27.62** | −0.23** |
| No. of intersections | – | – | 0.05* | Not enteredc |
| No. of speed humps | – | – | 0.33* | 0.05 |
| ΔMVPA on weekend days | ||||
| Local road index (ratio) | −75.31* | – | – | – |
| No. of speed humps | – | – | 0.51* | – |
This table shows significant associations (p < 0.05) only
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
aLinear regression including single road environment variable and ΔMVPA during period of interest, controlling for MVPA at T1
bMultiple linear regression including all variables with significant bivariate associations, controlling for MVPA at T1
cNot entered due to collinearity