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] | Â | youth | 1. environmental barriers to PA in local parks | 5 | 4 point Likert scale | Â |
2. safety barriers to PA in local parks | 6 | 4 point Likert scale | Â | |||
3.environmental barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets | 5 | 4 point Likert scale | Â | |||
4. safety barriers to PA in neighbourhood streets | 5 | 4 point Likert scale | Â | |||
Dwyer et al. [45] | Pre-PAQ | preschool-age children | perception of neighbourhood | 8 | 4 point Likert scale | Â |
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] | Â | adolescent girls | 1. safety | 8 | 5 point Likert scale | Â |
2. aesthetics | 4 | 5 point Likert scale | Â | |||
3. facilities near the home | 31 | 5 point Likert scale (3 items), yes – no (28 items) | sumscore for dichotomous items | |||
Forman et al. [41] | Â | 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] | Â | Hong Kong Chinese children | 1. safety | 5 | 5 point Likert scale | average score |
2. sports facilities | 5 | yes – no | sumscore | |||
Hume et al. [41] | Â | 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] | Â | preschool children | local environment | 8 | 5 point Likert scale | Â |
Norman et al. [42] | a | adolescents | environment | 4 | 5 point Likert scale | average score |
Ommundsen et al. [43] | Â | 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 | Â |
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 |