Table 3.
Source |
Dimensions of environmental construct (number of items) |
Internal consistency |
Test-retest reliability |
Inter-rater reliability |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Results | MQS | Interval [days] | Results | MQS | Results | ||
Dunton et al. [37] |
availability of community exercise facilities (26) |
not assessed |
|
|
not assessed |
29 |
n.s. |
Durant et al. [38] |
1. environmental barriers to PA in local parks (5) |
α = 0.71 - 0.81 |
38 |
27 |
ICC = 0.48 - 0.58 |
|
not assessed |
2. safety barriers to PA in local parks (6) |
α = 0.64 - 0.70 |
ICC = 0.57 - 0.76 |
|
||||
3. environmental barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets (5) |
α = 0.80 - 0.87 |
ICC = 0.49 - 0.61 |
|
||||
4. safety barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets (5) |
α = 0.67 - 0.76 |
ICC = 0.63 - 0.67 |
|
||||
Dwyer et al. [45] |
perception of neighbourhood (8) |
not assessed |
33 |
7-14 |
Κ = 0.60 - 0.90 |
|
not assessed |
Erwin [39] |
1. neighbourhood environment (9) |
not assessed |
70 |
7-10 |
ICC = 0.86 |
|
not assessed |
2. convenient facilities (11) |
ICC = 0.86 |
|
|||||
Evenson et al. [40] |
1. safety (8) |
not assessed |
70 |
6-24 (M = 12) |
Κ = 0.37 - 0.52 |
|
not assessed |
2. aesthetics (4) |
Κ = 0.31 - 0.39 |
|
|||||
3. facilities near the home (31) |
ICC: 0.78 |
|
|||||
Forman et al. [41] |
1. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to parks (17) |
α = 0.70 - 0.84 |
50 |
27 |
ICC = 0.60 - 0.74 |
|
ICC = 0.69 - 0.73 |
2. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to shops (17) |
α = 0.70 - 0.85 |
ICC = 0.56 - 0.75 |
29 |
ICC = 0.46 - 0.68 |
|||
3. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to school (17) |
α = 0.70 - 0.86 |
ICC = 0.60 - 0.81 |
|
ICC = 0.73 - 0.78 |
|||
Huang et al. [46] |
1. safety (5) |
α = 0.71 |
70 |
10 |
ICC = 0.89 |
|
not assessed |
2. sports facilities (5) |
not assessed |
Κ = 0.58 - 0.70 |
|
||||
Hume et al. [44] |
1. physical environment (15) |
not assessed |
60 |
up to 9 |
ICC = 0.84 |
|
not assessed |
2. aesthetics (9) |
α = 0.43 |
ICC = 0.72 |
|
||||
3. safety (5) |
α = 0.65 |
ICC = 0.88 |
|
||||
McMinn et al. [35] |
local environment (8) |
α = 0.52 - 0.62 |
|
|
not assessed |
|
not assessed |
Norman et al. [42] |
environment (4) |
α = 0.24 - 0.67 |
63 |
7 |
ICC = 0.60 - 0.64 |
|
not assessed |
Ommundsen et al. [43] |
1. opportunity (3) |
α = 0.44 |
|
|
not assessed |
|
not assessed |
2. facility (2) |
r = 0.20 |
|
|
|
|||
Pirasteh et al. [47] |
environment (4) |
α = 0.67 |
38 |
15 |
r = 0.38 |
|
not assessed |
Rosenberg et al. [36] |
1. land use mix-diversity (20) |
α = 0.87 - 0.93 |
50 |
27 |
ICC = 0.77 - 0.87 |
29 |
ICC = 0.77 |
2. pedestrian and automobile traffic safety (7) |
α = 0.79 - 0.85 |
ICC = 0.66 - 0.74 |
ICC = 0.52 |
||||
3. crime safety (6) |
α = 0.87 - 0.93 |
ICC = 0.73 - 0.87 |
ICC = 0.53 |
||||
4. neighbourhood aesthetics (3) |
α = 0.75 - 0.86 |
ICC = 0.60 - 0.75 |
ICC = 0.44 |
||||
5. walking/ cycling facilities (3) |
α = 0.79 - 0.89 |
ICC = 0.66 - 0.79 |
ICC = 0.59 |
||||
6. street connectivity (3) |
α = 0.72 - 0.75 |
ICC = 0.56 - 0.61 |
ICC = 0.47 |
||||
7. land use mix-access (6) |
α = 0.72 - 0.84 |
ICC = 0.56 - 0.73 |
ICC = 0.57 |
||||
8. residential density (4) |
α = 0.77 - 0.90 |
ICC = 0.62 - 0.82 |
ICC = 0.58 |
||||
9. recreation facilities (14) | α = 0.80 - 0.84 | ICC = 0.67 - 0.73 | ICC = 0.55 |
Note: PA, physical activity; α, Cronbach’s Alpha; Κ, Cohen’s kappa; ICC, Intra-class coefficient; r, correlation coefficient; n.s., not significant.