Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of the included questionnaires

From: Systematic review on measurement properties of questionnaires assessing the neighbourhood environment in the context of youth physical activity behaviour

Source

Name of instrument

Target population

Dimensions of environmental construct

Number of items

Response categories

Scoring

Dunton et al. [37]

 

adolescent girls

availability of community exercise facilities

26

yes – no

sumscore

Durant et al. [38]

 

youth

1. environmental barriers to PA in local parks

5

4 point Likert scale

 

2. safety barriers to PA in local parks

6

4 point Likert scale

 

3.environmental barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets

5

4 point Likert scale

 

4. safety barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets

5

4 point Likert scale

 

Dwyer et al. [45]

Pre-PAQ

preschool-age children

perception of neighbourhood

8

4 point Likert scale

 

Erwin [39]

Preadolescent Environmental Access to PA Questionnaire

9- to 12-year-old children

1. neighbourhood environment

9

yes – no

sumscore

2. convenient facilities

11

yes – no

sumscore

Evenson et al. [40]

 

adolescent girls

1. safety

8

5 point Likert scale

 

2. aesthetics

4

5 point Likert scale

 

3. facilities near the home

31

5 point Likert scale (3 items), yes – no (28 items)

sumscore for dichotomous items

Forman et al. [41]

 

youth

1. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to parks

17

4 point Likert scale

average score

2. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to shops

17

4 point Likert scale

average score

3. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to school

17

4 point Likert scale

average score

Huang et al. [46]

 

Hong Kong Chinese children

1. safety

5

5 point Likert scale

average score

2. sports facilities

5

yes – no

sumscore

Hume et al. [41]

 

children

1. physical environment

15

7 point scale

composite score

2. aesthetics

9

yes – no

sumscore

3. safety

5

yes – no

sumscore

McMinn et al. [35]

 

preschool children

local environment

8

5 point Likert scale

 

Norman et al. [42]

a

adolescents

environment

4

5 point Likert scale

average score

Ommundsen et al. [43]

 

young people

1. opportunity

3

3 response options

average score

2. facility

2

3 response options

average score

3. licenceb

2

3 response options

average score

Pirasteh et al. [47]

a

Iranian adolescent girls

environment

4

5 point Likert scale

 

Rosenberg et al. [36]

NEWS-Y

youth

1. land use mix-diversity

20

6 response options

composite score

2. pedestrian and automobile traffic safety

7

4 point Likert scale

average score

3. crime safety

6

4 point Likert scale

average score

4. aesthetics

3

4 point Likert scale

average score

5. walking/ cycling facilities

3

4 point Likert scale

average score

6. street connectivity

3

4 point Likert scale

average score

7. land use mix-access

6

4 point Likert scale

average score

8. residential density

4

5 response options

composite score

   

9. recreation facilities

14

6 response options

composite score

  1. Note: PA, physical activity; a Items originally from the Amhest Health and Activity Study; b dimension is not an aspect of a physical environmental construct in the proper sense, but was mentioned because it was included in the factorial analysis.