Abstract
Citation
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health 2003 Sep;93(9):1552-8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated a neighborhood environment survey and compared the physical activity and weight status of the residents in 2 neighborhoods. METHODS: On 2 occasions, 107 adults from neighborhoods with differing "walkability" were selected to complete a survey on their neighborhood environment. Physical activity was assessed by self-report and by accelerometer; height and weight were assessed by self-report. RESULTS: Neighborhood environment characteristics had moderate to high test-retest reliabilities. Residents of high-walkability neighborhoods reported higher residential density, land use mix, street connectivity, aesthetics, and safety. They had more than 70 more minutes of physical activity and had lower obesity prevalence (adjusted for individual demographics) than did residents of low-walkability neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability and validity of self-reported neighborhood environment subscales were supported. Neighborhood environment was associated with physical activity and overweight prevalence.
Full Text
The full text is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.9.1552
At A Glance
Physical Activity Environment Variables
| # | Type of Environment/Location |
|---|---|
| 2 | Total Environments/Locations |
| 2 | Community/Neighborhood as a Whole |
| # | Scale |
|---|---|
| 2 | Neighborhood |
| Measure | objective | perceived |
|---|---|---|
| Street Connectivity | ✘ | ✔ |
| Crime/Safety | ✘ | ✔ |
| Pedestrian/Traffic Safety | ✘ | ✔ |
| Cycling Infrastructure | ✘ | ✔ |
| Aesthetics/Beautification | ✘ | ✔ |
| Land Use | ✘ | ✔ |
| Pedestrian Infrastructure | ✘ | ✔ |
| Population/Housing Density | ✘ | ✔ |
Domain(s)
Physical Activity Environment
Measure Type
Questionnaire
Measure Availability
Free. Access at Measures
Download measure from drjamessallis.sdsu.edu
Number of Items
68 Reported
Study location
Metro/Urban
San Diego, CA, USA
Languages
English
Information about Development of Measure
Tool was developed by Saelens & Sallis in consultation with a San Diego- based community group with interest in promoting walking and walkability; disciplines in the group included transportation, environmental protection, and urban planning professionals
Study Design
Study Participants
Age
Adults
Sex
Female
Male
Race/Ethnicity
Hispanic
White
Black/African American
Asian
Predominantly Low-income/Low-SES
No
Sample Size
107
Study Design
Design Type
Validation/Reliability
Health Outcomes Assessed
None
Obesity Measures
Not applicable
BMI Measured or Self-reported
Not applicable
Covariates
Not reported
Data Reported on Race/Ethnicity
Quantitative data on study sample
Data Reported on SES
Quantitative data on study sample
SES-related Variables
Education
How To Use
Administration
Who Administered
Self-administered
How Administered
Email/postal mail
Time Required
Not reported
Training Required
Not reported
Instructions on Use
Access at Measures
Data Analysis
Data Collection/Analysis Costs
Not available
Data Collection/Protocol
Data also reported on accelerometer and self-report physical activity differences between neighborhoods.
Instructions on Data Analysis
Access at Measures
Validity (8)
| Type of validity | Construct/subscale assessed | Criterion measure used | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concurrent | Crime safety | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.1 (0.4) Low walkability 3.1 (0.5) | |
| Concurrent | Land use mix-diversity | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.5 (0.6) Low walkability 2.8 (0.7) p<0.03 | |
| Concurrent | Residential density | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 203.2 (19.2) Low walkability 194.4 (21.6) p<0.03 | |
| Concurrent | Street connectivity | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.2 (0.5) Low walkability 2.9 (0.5) p<0.03 | |
| Concurrent | Pedestrian/Traffic Safety | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.1 (0.5) Low walkability 2.7 (0.5) p<0.03 | |
| Concurrent | Walking/cycling facilities | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.0 (0.3) Low walkability 3.2 (0.4) p =0.003 | |
| Concurrent | Land use mix-access | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.2 (0.3) Low walkability 2.8 (0.5) p<0.03 | |
| Concurrent | Aesthetics | Mean (SD) F test (p value) | Neighborhoods High walkability 3.0 (0.5) Low walkability 2.8 (0.5) p<0.03 |
Reliability (8)
| Type of reliability | Construct/subscale assessed | Test/statistic used | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Test-retest | Residential density | Intraclass correlation | 0.63 |
| Test-retest | Crime safety | Intraclass correlation | 0.80 |
| Test-retest | Land use mix- access | Intraclass correlation | 0.79 |
| Test-retest | Walking/cycling facilities | Intraclass correlation | 0.58 |
| Test-retest | Pedestrians/traffic safety | Intraclass correlation | 0.77 |
| Test-retest | Aesthetics | Intraclass correlation | 0.79 |
| Test-retest | Street connectivity | Intraclass correlation | 0.63 |
| Test-retest | Land use mix-diversity | Intraclass correlation | 0.78 |