Table 5.
Reliability of perception of neighborhood food environment questions by urban and rural (N=98)
| Questions | Urban (N=24)
|
Rural (N=74)
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Call 1 | Call 2 | Reliability | Call 1 | Call 2 | Reliability | |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Perceptions of food environment | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ICC (95%CI) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ICC (95%CI) |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Selection of fresh fruit and vegetables† | 3.9(1.4) | 3.8(1.2) | 0.68 (0.40,0.84) | 2.6(1.4) | 2.4(1.2) | 0.49 (0.30,0.64) |
| High quality fresh fruit and vegetables† | 3.8(1.2) | 3.8(1.1) | 0.63 (0.32,0.82) | 2.7(1.3) | 2.6(1.3) | 0.48 (0.28,0.64) |
| Large selection of low fat products† | 3.5(1.2) | 3.6(1.1) | 0.73 (0.47,0.87) | 2.6(1.3) | 2.2(1.1) | 0.49 (0.30,0.65) |
| Average of healthy food availability scale§ | 3.8(1.2) | 3.7(1.0) | 0.77 (0.54,0.89) | 2.6(1.2) | 2.4(1.1) | 0.61 (0.44,0.74) |
| Opportunities to purchase fast food† | 3.4(1.4) | 3.5(1.5) | 0.90 (0.79,0.95)* | 2.3(1.4) | 2.1(1.2) | 0.47 (0.27,0.63)* |
| Lack of access is a problemΔ | 3.8(0.5) | 3.7(0.7) | 0.61 (0.30,0.81) | 2.6(1.2) | 2.4(1.1) | 0.65 (0.50,0.76) |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Perceived presence of food outlet | Yes (%) | Yes (%) | Phi Coefficient (95%CI) | Yes (%) | Yes (%) | Phi Coefficient (95%CI) |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Supercenter‡ | 33.3 | 33.3 | 1.00* | 5.4 | 4.1 | 0.86 (0.79,0.91)* |
| Supermarket‡ | 62.5 | 66.7 | 0.73 (0.46,0.88) | 17.6 | 17.6 | 0.72 (0.59,0.81) |
| Smaller grocery store‡ | 29.2 | 37.5 | 0.35 (0.06,0.72) | 25.7 | 27.0 | 0.55 (0.37,0.69) |
| Convenience store‡ | 73.9 | 78.3 | 0.41 (0.00,0.70) | 43.2 | 47.3 | 0.54 (0.35,0.68) |
| Specialty store‡ | 50.0 | 41.7 | 0.51 (0.13,0.76) | 2.7 | 1.4 | 0.70 (0.56,0.80) |
| Drug store or Pharmacy‡ | 66.7 | 70.8 | 0.91 (0.80,0.96) | 14.9 | 16.2 | 0.74 (0.62,0.83) |
| Dollar store‡ | 58.3 | 56.5 | 0.55 (0.19,0.78) | 33.8 | 32.4 | 0.79 (0.68,0.86) |
| Franchised fast food restaurant‡ | 58.3 | 54.2 | 0.75 (0.50,0.89) | 13.5 | 12.2 | 0.70 (0.56,0.80) |
| Sit down restaurant‡ | 50.0 | 54.2 | 0.59 (0.24,0.80) | 28.4 | 29.7 | 0.64 (0.48,0.76) |
Range of scores: 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=neutral, 4, disagree, 5=strongly disagree;
Range of scores: 1=very serious problem, 2=somewhat serious problem, 3=minor problem, 4=not really a problem;
Categories: 1=yes, 2=no;
The difference between urban and rural is significant. Non-overlapping confidence intervals is indication that the ICCs and Phi values were different;
The average scores were calculated by taking the average across three items for perceptions of food environment (availability of fresh fruit and vegetables, quality of fresh fruit and vegetables, and availability of low fat products) (see Mujahid et al., 2007), and the overall reliability was estimated by the average scores of call 1 and call 2.