Table 3.
Subscale | Label | Number of Items |
Mean (SD) |
Virtual Toola
|
In-field Toolb
|
||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICC (95% Confidence Interval) |
Range of Item Kappas or ICCs (% Agreement) |
ICC | Range of Item Kappas or ICCs (% Agreement) |
||||
Positive Subscale
|
|||||||
Crosswalk Amenities/Qualities | Crosswalk characteristics (e.g., marked crosswalk, high visibility markings) | 9 | 0.81 | 0.577 | 0.304–0.660 | 0.807 | −0.012–0.816 |
(1.01) | (0.392–0.718) | (77.1%–100%) | (86.8%–99.7%) | ||||
Curb | Pre- and post-crossing curb lining up with crossing | 2 | 1.73 | 0.790 | 0.635–0.861 | 0.684 | 0.648–0.651 |
Quality/Presence | (0.66) | (0.680–0.865) | (90.0%–94.0%) | (81.8%–84.7%) | |||
Intersection Control and Signage | Stop signs, pedestrian walk signals | 10 | 3.88 | 0.657 | 0.359–0.793 | 0.752 | 0.327–0.811 |
(2.85) | (0.498–0.773) | (72.9%–100%) | (88.4%–98.7%) | ||||
Overall Positive Crossing Characteristics Subscale | Sum of subscales: crosswalk amenities/qualities, curb quality/presence, intersection control and signage | 3 | 3.24 | 0.703 | 0.828 | ||
subscales | (1.96) | (0.555–0.808) | |||||
Negative Subscale
|
|||||||
Lanes/Road Width of Crossing | Distance of crossing leg (# lanes wide, trichotomized) | 1 | 1.16 | 0.348 | 0.553–0.517 | 0.525 | 0.524 |
(0.56) | (0.126–0.537) | (64.3%–68.6%) | (66.0%–72.9%) | ||||
Crossing Impediments | No curb ramp, gutters in crossing, faded/worn crosswalk markings | 7 | 0.19 | 0.800 | 0.767–0.858 | 0.728 | 0.188–0.893 |
(0.49) | (0.695–0.872) | (94.3%–100%) | (83.0%–99.4%) | ||||
Overall Negative Crossing | Sum of subscales: Lanes/Road | 2 | 0.88 | 0.548 | 0.587 | ||
Characteristics Subscale | Width of Crossing, Crossing Impediments | subscales | (0.75) | (0.357–0.695) | |||
Overall Subscales
|
|||||||
Overall Crossings Score | Sum of subscales: Overall Positive | 3.60 | 0.771 | 0.830 | |||
Crossing Characteristics-Overall Negative Crossing Characteristics | (3.48) | (0.650–0.854) |
Measured by Google Earth between virtual raters with different familiarities of the environment.
Measured in field between raters with same familiarity of the environment (Millstain RA, Cain KL, Sallis JF, et al. Development, scoring, and reliability of the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 27;13:403.).