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.