Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Place. 2014 Dec 27;31:163–172. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.012

Table 1.

Characteristics of segments and image quality rated in CANVAS

A. Segment Characteristics Mean S.D. Median Min. Max. ICC
Number of steps 19.48 13.28 17 2 101 0.99
Percentage of steps obstructed(a) 26.98 27.10 20 0.00 100.00 0.10
B. Time to Rate (in minutes) Mean S.D. Median Min. Max. ICC

Entire segment 17.11 10.00 14.59 4.72 108.78 0.07
    Building conditions module 4.68 4.46 3.88 0.77 78.08 0.03
    Meta characteristics module 3.65 4.30 2.63 0.63 54.37 0.04
    Land use module 2.22 2.12 1.48 0.27 12.15 0.00
    Road and parking module 1.63 1.16 1.44 0.28 14.25 0.00
    First intersection module 1.58 1.65 1.27 0.37 21.43 0.04
    Sidewalk characteristics module 1.52 3.10 1.20 0.05 61.13 0.06
    Pedestrian access module 1.38 1.29 1.00 0.25 11.23 0.00
    Biking characteristics module 0.46 0.78 0.25 0.07 10.92 0.12
C. image Quality Freq. Pet. ICC

Zoom level (number of clicks on zoom) where pixelation occurs 0.06
0 14 3.11
1 191 42.44
2 118 26.22
3 97 21.56
4 30 6.67
Legibility of street signs at initial zoom level 0.53(b)
Clearly legible 136 30.22
Blurry but legible 84 18.67
Unreadable 178 39.56
Camera technology 0.82(c)
Dark 319 70.89 (kappa)
Light 131 29.11

Notes:

(a)

2 of segments had percentage of obstructed streets greater than 100 and were set to missing

(b)

The category “No sign visible” not included in intra-class correlation analysis

(c)

Kappa valuereported because camera technology included only two response categories