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.