Elena M Andresen1, Theodore K Malmstrom, Douglas K Miller, Fredric D Wolinsky. 1. Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center (RORC), North Florida/South Georgia VHS, Gainesville, FL, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, P.O. Box 10082, Gainesville, Florida 32610-0182, USA. eandresen@phhp.ufl.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to examine the validity and reliability of a five-item neighborhood measurement scale. METHODS: Respondents were enrolled from two catchment areas: a poor inner city and a heterogeneous suburban area. Items combine for a total score of 5 (best) to 20 (worst). The authors compared scales across catchment areas and respondent ratings and assessed interviewer effects and retest reliability. RESULTS: Suburban neighborhood scale scores were 3 points lower (higher socioeconomic status, SES) than the inner-city scores. There was a strong relationship between scores and participants' neighborhood ratings. The retest correlation was substantial (.81), but only two of five items achieved kappas above .75. In regression models, interviewer experience and residence and individual interviewers contributed to different ratings, although there was still a marked difference between catchment areas. DISCUSSION: Observer ratings of neighborhoods show promise as a measure of neighborhood SES, despite problems with interviewer effects. Future work should improve objective criteria for ratings.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to examine the validity and reliability of a five-item neighborhood measurement scale. METHODS: Respondents were enrolled from two catchment areas: a poor inner city and a heterogeneous suburban area. Items combine for a total score of 5 (best) to 20 (worst). The authors compared scales across catchment areas and respondent ratings and assessed interviewer effects and retest reliability. RESULTS: Suburban neighborhood scale scores were 3 points lower (higher socioeconomic status, SES) than the inner-city scores. There was a strong relationship between scores and participants' neighborhood ratings. The retest correlation was substantial (.81), but only two of five items achieved kappas above .75. In regression models, interviewer experience and residence and individual interviewers contributed to different ratings, although there was still a marked difference between catchment areas. DISCUSSION: Observer ratings of neighborhoods show promise as a measure of neighborhood SES, despite problems with interviewer effects. Future work should improve objective criteria for ratings.
Authors: Cheryl M Kelly; Mario Schootman; Elizabeth A Baker; Ellen K Barnidge; Amanda Lemes Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Anna K Porter; Fang Wen; Amy H Herring; Daniel A Rodríguez; Lynne C Messer; Barbara A Laraia; Kelly R Evenson Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; John E Morley; Douglas K Miller Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Douglas K Miller Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Douglas K Miller; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Elena M Andresen; Mario Schootman; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2010-01-05
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; J Philip Miller; Yan Yan; Douglas K Miller Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Douglas K Miller Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Douglas K Miller; Fredric D Wolinsky; Elena M Andresen; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mario Schootman; Elena M Andresen; Fredric D Wolinsky; Theodore K Malmstrom; J Philip Miller; Yan Yan; Douglas K Miller Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-07-11 Impact factor: 4.897