Skip to main content

Table 3 Dimensionality, reliability, and criterion-related validity of three urbanicity scales

From: Validation and comparison study of three urbanicity scales in a Thailand context

Test parameter Novak et al. Dahly and Adair Jones-Smith and Popkin
Presenta Previousb Presenta Previousb Presenta Previousb
Dimensionality       
  Number of factor(s) 0 1 1 n/a 2 1
Internal consistency       
  Chonbach’s alpha 0.48 n/a 0.51 0.87 0.74 0.89
  Item scale correlations       
  Population size 0.44 0.50 0.46 0.72   
  Population density    0.45 0.64 0.71 0.47
  Economic activity 0.44 0.88    0.72 0.70
  Built environment 0.40 0.73     
  Housing      0.76 0.80
  Sanitation      0.70 0.77
  Communication 0.44 0.80 0.52 0.70 0.72 0.68
  Transportation    0.49 0.56 0.72 0.40
  Education 0.52 0.85 0.54 0.48 0.71 0.67
  Health 0.37 0.62 0.41 0.75 0.69 0.62
  Markets    0.42 0.80   
  Traditional market      0.72 0.61
  Modern market      0.73 0.75
  Social services      0.75 0.51
  Diversity 0.45 0.40    0.72 0.67
Criterion-related validity       
Compared with urban–rural dichotomy classification     
  Observed Agreement 64.43 % 88.10 % 71.88 % n/a 74.86 % 74 %
  Expected Agreement 52.20 % 49.80 % 51.47 % n/a 50.48 % 51 %
  Kappa Statistic 0.26 0.76 0.42 n/a 0.49 0.48
  p-value <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001 n/a <0.001 <0.05
Compare with four-category urban classification     
  Spearman’s Correlation 0.37 0.84 0.45 n/a 0.58 0.75-0.78
  p-value <0.001 <0.0001 <0.001   <0.001  
  1. aPresent validation results
  2. bPrevious validation results by the original scale developers
  3. n/a=not available