4.3 Article

Testing the Reliability of Neighborhood-Specific Measures of Physical Activity Among Canadian Adults

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages 367-373

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.6.3.367

Keywords

built environment; measurement; physical activity assessment; survey research; walkability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Capturing neighborhood-specific physical activity is necessary to advance understanding of the relations between neighborhood walkability and physical activity. This study examined the test-retest reliability of previously developed items (from the Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire) for capturing setting-specific physical activity among Canadian adults. Methods: Randomly sampled adults (N = 117) participated in 2 telephone interviews 2 to 5 days apart. Respondents were asked a series of items capturing frequency and duration of transportation-related walking, recreational walking, and moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activity undertaken inside and outside the neighborhood in a usual week. The test test reliability of reported physical activity levels were then examined using intraclass and Spearman's rank correlations, kappa coefficients, and overall agreement. Results: Participation, frequency, and the duration of transportation-related and recreational walking and vigorous-intensity physical activity inside and outside the neighborhood showed moderate to excellent test-retest reliability. Moderate reliability was found for moderate-intensity physical activity undertaken inside (kappa = .48; ICC frequency = .38; ICC duration = .39) and outside (kappa = .51; ICC frequency = .79; ICC duration = .31) the neighborhood. Conclusions: Neighborhood-specific physical activity items administered by telephone interview are reliable and are therefore appropriate for use in future studies examining neighborhood walkability and physical activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available