Brownson Ross C, Chang Jen Jen, Eyler Amy A, Ainsworth Barbara E, Kirtland Karen A, Saelens Brian E, Sallis James F
Department of Community Health and Prevention Research Center, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, St Louis, MO, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):473-83. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.473.
We tested the reliability of 3 instruments that assessed social and physical environments.
We conducted a test-retest study among US adults (n = 289). We used telephone survey methods to measure suitableness of the perceived (vs objective) environment for recreational physical activity and nonmotorized transportation.
Most questions in our surveys that attempted to measure specific characteristics of the built environment showed moderate to high reliability. Questions about the social environment showed lower reliability than those that assessed the physical environment. Certain blocks of questions appeared to be selectively more reliable for urban or rural respondents.
Despite differences in content and in response formats, all 3 surveys showed evidence of reliability, and most items are now ready for use in research and in public health surveillance.
我们测试了3种评估社会和物理环境的工具的可靠性。
我们在美国成年人(n = 289)中进行了重测研究。我们使用电话调查方法来衡量感知(相对于客观)环境对休闲体育活动和非机动交通的适宜性。
我们调查中试图测量建成环境特定特征的大多数问题显示出中度到高度的可靠性。关于社会环境的问题比评估物理环境的问题可靠性更低。某些问题组对城市或农村受访者似乎有选择性地更可靠。
尽管在内容和回答格式上存在差异,但所有3项调查都显示出可靠性证据,并且大多数项目现在已准备好用于研究和公共卫生监测。