Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparisons of interviewer rating of the Krause, and the African American Health Neighborhood Assessment Scale (AAH NAS) items and scales

From: Observer ratings of neighborhoods: comparison of two methods

Krause five-item scale

Items and scale

Categories/Range

Retest pairs n=120

Catchment area comparison #

Kappa+/ICC*

Adjusted Kappa+

Inner city

Suburbs

n=237

n=332

1. Condition of houses, buildings

All 5 items coded 1–4; Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor

0.32

NA

2.0 ± 0.8

1.5 ±0.6

2. Amount of noise

0.26

NA

1.8 ± 0.9

1.6 ±0.8

3. Air quality

−0.17

NA

1.3 ± 0.5

1.2 ± 0.5

4. Condition of street

0.03

NA

1.5 ± 0.7

1.6 ± 0.7

5. Condition of yards, sidewalks

0.32

NA

2.1 ± 0.9

1.6 ±0.7

Total Rating Score (Items 1–5) Ѱ

Range 5–20 (observed range 5–16). 23.1% of scores were the minimum value of 5.

0.19

NA

8.6 ± 2.6

7.5 ± 2.4

African American Health Neighborhood Assessment Items and Scales

  

Items and scales

Categories/Range

Retest pairs n=120

Catchment area comparison

Items that do not contribute to scores shown in italics

Kappa+/ICC*

Adjusted Kappa+

Inner city

Suburbs

Items rating entire street

 

n=237

n=332

1. Volume of traffic

None, light, moderate, heavy (0–3)

0.38

NA

0.96 ± 0.93

0.73 ± 0.79

2. Condition of street

Very good, moderate, fair, poor (0–3)

0.09

NA

2.43 ± 0.72

2.37 ± 0.75

3. Amount of noise

Very, fairly quiet; somewhat, very noisy (0–3)

0.24

NA

0.84 ± 0.81

0.53 ± 0.68

4. Smells

None, any (0,1)

---

0.97

1.3%

3.3%

5. Dirt or dust

None, any (0,1)

---

1.00

0.8%

0.6%

Items rated on block face of respondent’s residence

  

6. Abandoned car

None, any (0,1)

−0.03

0.88

5.1%

2.7%

7. Beer, liquor bottles

None, any (0,1)

0.12

0.48

32.9%

10.6%

8. Cigarette, tobacco litter

None, any (0,1)

0.12

0.13

74.3%

45.8%

9. Garbage, litter, broken glass

None, light, moderate heavy (0–3)

0.33

NA

0.92 ± 0.82

0.48 ±0.64

10. Land use residential

None, any (0,1)

---

 

97.9%

98.5%

10.a. Type (most)

Detached single family

0.58

0.97

53.6%

95.3%

 

Private multi family

  

25.0%

0.0%

 

Private apartments/townhouses

  

16.1%

4.7%

 

Public housing

  

5.4%

0.0%

10.b. Condition

Very well kept/good, moderately well kept, fair, poor/badly deteriorated (0–3)

0.19

NA

0.88 ± 0.82

0.50 ± 0.68

10.c. Bars/grates on doors or windows

None, any (0,1)

0.43

0.43

68.2%

35.8%

11. Land use commercial/ business/professional/industry

None, any (0,1)

0.31

0.82

12.7%

4.2%

11.a. Condition

Very well kept/good/moderate; Fair/poor/deteriorated

0.45

−0.57

78.8%

100%

11.b. Security blinds, iron gates

(0,1) None, any (0,1)

0.40

−0.33

48.5%

21.4%

12. Land use institutions (schools, churches etc.)

None, any (0,1)

0.11

0.82

8.4%

2.7%

13. Land use parks

None, any (0,1)

---

0.97

0.4%

0.3%

14. Land use playgrounds

None, any (0,1)

−0.01

0.95

0.8%

0.6%

15. Land use other recreational

None, any (0,1)

---

0.98

1.3%

0.3%

Summary of 13-15

0-3

−0.02

NA

0.03 ± 0.18

0.01 ± 0.13

16. Condition of 13-15

Very well kept/good, moderately well kept, fair, poor/badly deteriorated (0–3)

−0.01

NA

3.97 ± 0.33

3.96 ± 0.33

17. Graffiti

None, any (0,1)

−0.02

0.92

5.5%

0.3%

18. Neighborhood/Crime watch

None, any (0,1)

0.01

0.66

9.7%

10.9%

19. Security warning signs

None, any (0,1)

0.44

0.61

69.2%

81.9%

20. Tobacco advertisements

None, any (0,1)

−0.01

0.93

2.5%

0.9 %

21. Alcohol advertisements

None, any (0,1)

−0.01

0.97

3.0%

1.5%

22. Home “for sale”

None, any (0,1)

0.15

0.62

13.5%

16.0%

Total 18-item Score (1–9, 10b, 10c, 13–15,17, 20–22) Ѱ

0-28 (observed range 3–20)

0.54

NA

9.2 ± 3.4

7.0 ± 3.2

Short 7-item Scale (1–3, 7–9, 10b) Ѱ

0-17 (observed range 0–13). 11.5% of scores were the minimum value of 0.

0.56

NA

5.2 ± 3.0

3.4 ± 2.8

Short 5-item Scale (3, 7–9, 10b) Ѱ

0-11 (observed range 0–9) 19.7% were the minimum value of 0

0.62

NA

3.7 ± 2.2

2.1 ± 2.0

  1. *Intraclass correlation coefficient. + Kappa or Weighted Kappa (К) for ranked categories; adjusted kappa (Lantz & Nebenzahl, 1996). Values with --- notation could not be calculated because one or more cells of the kappa table had zero observations.
  2. #Higher scores represent lower neighborhood condition quality. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals are reported for dichotomous responses, and means and standard deviations are reported for items with three or more categories, and for scales.
  3. Ѱ Mean values between catchment areas are significantly different by t-tests at p<0.05.