Table 4.

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

	Self-report neighborhood LTPA (n=456)		Self-report non-neighborhood LTPA (n=456)		Accelerometer-based non-school MVPA (n=435)
	B (SE)	p	B (SE)	p	B (SE)	p
Objective neighborhood environment
Walkability index	0.003 (0.04)	.94	−0.002 (0.02)	.93	−0.02 (0.39)	.95
Recreation facility density	0.01 (0.02)	.50	0.02 (0.01)	.02	0.12 (0.18)	.50
Parent/guardian-perceived neighborhood environment
Traffic safety	0.17 (0.11)	.12	0.03 (0.06)	.58	0.95 (1.21)	.43
Safety from crime	−0.11 (0.07)	.11	−0.02 (0.04)	.69	−0.80 (0.77)	.30
Pedestrian safety	−0.0001 (0.09)	.99	0.05 (0.05)	.33	0.67 (0.98)	.50
Neighborhood aesthetics	0.02 (0.09)	.80	0.06 (0.05)	.26	0.43 (1.05)	.68
Adolescent psychosocial factors
Social support	0.42 (0.07)	<.0001	0.32 (0.04)	<.0001	2.39 (0.85)	.005
Decisional balance	0.03 (0.09)	.72	0.003 (0.05)	.96	−0.65 (0.94)	.49
Self-efficacy	0.23 (0.07)	.0005	0.19 (0.04)	<.0001	2.95 (0.74)	<.0001
Parental rules	−0.05 (0.02)	.005	−0.01 (0.01)	.23	−0.40 (0.22)	.07
Significant interaction
Walkability index X decisional balance	-	-	0.04 (0.02)	.01	-	-

Notes: LTPA= leisure-time physical activity, SE = standard error

^aAdjusted for adolescents’ age and work/volunteer status, walkability/income quadrant, site (King County or Maryland regions), and census block (random effect). Independent variables are centered on the grand means for the male sample.