4.6 Article

Measurement of the Local Food Environment: A Comparison of Existing Data Sources

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 171, Issue 5, Pages 609-617

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwp419

Keywords

Chicago; geographic information systems; reproducibility of results; residence characteristics; social environment

Funding

  1. University of Michigan's Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Society [045823]
  2. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD38986, HD050467]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studying the relation between the residential environment and health requires valid, reliable, and cost-effective methods to collect data on residential environments. This 2002 study compared the level of agreement between measures of the presence of neighborhood businesses drawn from 2 common sources of data used for research on the built environment and health: listings of businesses from commercial databases and direct observations of city blocks by raters. Kappa statistics were calculated for 6 types of businesses-drugstores, liquor stores, bars, convenience stores, restaurants, and grocers-located on 1,663 city blocks in Chicago, Illinois. Logistic regressions estimated whether disagreement between measurement methods was systematically correlated with the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods. Levels of agreement between the 2 sources were relatively high, with significant (P < 0.001) kappa statistics for each business type ranging from 0.32 to 0.70. Most business types were more likely to be reported by direct observations than in the commercial database listings. Disagreement between the 2 sources was not significantly correlated with the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods. Results suggest that researchers should have reasonable confidence using whichever method (or combination of methods) is most cost-effective and theoretically appropriate for their research design.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available