Table 3.

Associations of objective and perceived neighborhood environment and psychosocial factors, and their interactions, with context-specific physical activity among female participants.^a Baltimore, MD/Washington, DC and Seattle-King County, Washington, 2009–11.

	Self-report neighborhood LTPA (n=454)		Self-report non-neighborhood LTPA (n=454)		Accelerometer-based non-school MVPA (n=431)
	B (SE)	p	B (SE)	p	B (SE)	p
Objective neighborhood environment
Walkability index	0.01 (0.03)	.74	0.01 (0.02)	.49	0.44 (0.27)	.10
Recreation facility density	−0.02 (0.01)	.19	−0.01 (0.01)	.21	−0.09 (0.13)	.47
Parent/guardian-perceived neighborhood environment
Traffic safety	−0.02 (0.09)	.80	−0.03 (0.05)	.56	−0.24 (0.86)	.78
Safety from crime	0.09 (0.06)	.16	0.08 (0.03)	.02	1.15 (0.56)	.04
Pedestrian safety	0.06 (0.08)	.45	−0.07 (0.05)	.18	−0.80 (0.80)	.31
Neighborhood aesthetics	−0.08 (0.09)	.35	0.05 (0.05)	.21	1.09 (0.82)	.18
Adolescent psychosocial factors
Social support	0.48 (0.06)	<.0001	0.33 (0.04)	<.0001	1.14 (0.61)	.06
Decisional balance	−0.02 (0.08)	.85	−0.01 (0.05)	.91	1.05 (0.76)	.17
Self-efficacy	0.11 (0.06)	.09	0.09 (0.04)	.01	1.50 (0.59)	.01
Parental rules	−0.05 (0.02)	.004	−0.02 (0.01)	.04	−0.26 (0.17)	.13
Significant interactions
Recreation facility density X decisional balance	−0.03 (0.01)	.03	-	-	-	-
Walkability index X decisional balance	-	-	-	-	0.51 (0.25)	.04

Notes: LTPA= leisure-time physical activity, MVPA = moderate-to vigorous-physical activity, SE = standard error

^aAll models adjusted for adolescents’ age and work/volunteer status, walkability/income quadrant, site (King County or Maryland regions), and census block (random effect). Accelerometer-based model also adjusted for valid wear time and device used. Independent variables are centered on the grand means for the female sample.