Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological quality and measurement properties of studies on reliability

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

Source

Dimensions of environmental construct (number of items)

Internal consistency

Test-retest reliability

Inter-rater reliability

  

Results

MQS

Interval [days]

Results

MQS

Results

Dunton et al. [37]

availability of community exercise facilities (26)

not assessed

  

not assessed

29

n.s.

Durant et al. [38]

1. environmental barriers to PA in local parks (5)

α = 0.71 - 0.81

38

27

ICC = 0.48 - 0.58

 

not assessed

2. safety barriers to PA in local parks (6)

α = 0.64 - 0.70

ICC = 0.57 - 0.76

 

3. environmental barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets (5)

α = 0.80 - 0.87

ICC = 0.49 - 0.61

 

4. safety barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets (5)

α = 0.67 - 0.76

ICC = 0.63 - 0.67

 

Dwyer et al. [45]

perception of neighbourhood (8)

not assessed

33

7-14

Κ = 0.60 - 0.90

 

not assessed

Erwin [39]

1. neighbourhood environment (9)

not assessed

70

7-10

ICC = 0.86

 

not assessed

2. convenient facilities (11)

ICC = 0.86

 

Evenson et al. [40]

1. safety (8)

not assessed

70

6-24 (M = 12)

Κ = 0.37 - 0.52

 

not assessed

2. aesthetics (4)

Κ = 0.31 - 0.39

 

3. facilities near the home (31)

ICC: 0.78

 

Forman et al. [41]

1. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to parks (17)

α = 0.70 - 0.84

50

27

ICC = 0.60 - 0.74

 

ICC = 0.69 - 0.73

2. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to shops (17)

α = 0.70 - 0.85

ICC = 0.56 - 0.75

29

ICC = 0.46 - 0.68

3. environmental barriers for walking and cycling to school (17)

α = 0.70 - 0.86

ICC = 0.60 - 0.81

 

ICC = 0.73 - 0.78

Huang et al. [46]

1. safety (5)

α = 0.71

70

10

ICC = 0.89

 

not assessed

2. sports facilities (5)

not assessed

Κ = 0.58 - 0.70

 

Hume et al. [44]

1. physical environment (15)

not assessed

60

up to 9

ICC = 0.84

 

not assessed

2. aesthetics (9)

α = 0.43

ICC = 0.72

 

3. safety (5)

α = 0.65

ICC = 0.88

 

McMinn et al. [35]

local environment (8)

α = 0.52 - 0.62

  

not assessed

 

not assessed

Norman et al. [42]

environment (4)

α = 0.24 - 0.67

63

7

ICC = 0.60 - 0.64

 

not assessed

Ommundsen et al. [43]

1. opportunity (3)

α = 0.44

  

not assessed

 

not assessed

2. facility (2)

r = 0.20

   

Pirasteh et al. [47]

environment (4)

α = 0.67

38

15

r = 0.38

 

not assessed

Rosenberg et al. [36]

1. land use mix-diversity (20)

α = 0.87 - 0.93

50

27

ICC = 0.77 - 0.87

29

ICC = 0.77

2. pedestrian and automobile traffic safety (7)

α = 0.79 - 0.85

ICC = 0.66 - 0.74

ICC = 0.52

3. crime safety (6)

α = 0.87 - 0.93

ICC = 0.73 - 0.87

ICC = 0.53

4. neighbourhood aesthetics (3)

α = 0.75 - 0.86

ICC = 0.60 - 0.75

ICC = 0.44

5. walking/ cycling facilities (3)

α = 0.79 - 0.89

ICC = 0.66 - 0.79

ICC = 0.59

6. street connectivity (3)

α = 0.72 - 0.75

ICC = 0.56 - 0.61

ICC = 0.47

7. land use mix-access (6)

α = 0.72 - 0.84

ICC = 0.56 - 0.73

ICC = 0.57

8. residential density (4)

α = 0.77 - 0.90

ICC = 0.62 - 0.82

ICC = 0.58

 

9. recreation facilities (14)

α = 0.80 - 0.84

  

ICC = 0.67 - 0.73

 

ICC = 0.55

  1. Note: PA, physical activity; α, Cronbach’s Alpha; Κ, Cohen’s kappa; ICC, Intra-class coefficient; r, correlation coefficient; n.s., not significant.