Jesse J Plascak1, Andrew G Rundle2, Riddhi A Babel3, Adana A M Llanos4, Celine M LaBelle5, Antoinette M Stroup6, Stephen J Mooney7. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey; Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Electronic address: jesse.plascak@rutgers.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey; Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 5. Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 6. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey; Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey; New Jersey State Cancer Registry, New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey. 7. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Various built environment factors might influence certain health behaviors and outcomes. Reliable, resource-efficient methods that are feasible for assessing built environment characteristics across large geographies are needed for larger, more robust studies. This paper reports the item response prevalence, reliability, and rating time of a new virtual neighborhood audit protocol, drop-and-spin auditing, developed for assessment of walkability and physical disorder characteristics across large geographic areas. METHODS: Drop-and-spin auditing, a method where a Google Street View scene was rated by spinning 360° around a point location, was developed using a modified version of the virtual audit tool Computer Assisted Neighborhood Visual Assessment System. Approximately 8,000 locations within Essex County, New Jersey were assessed by 11 trained auditors. Using a standardized protocol, 32 built environment items per a location within Google Street View were audited. Test-retest and inter-rater κ statistics were from a 5% subsample of locations. Data were collected in 2017-2018 and analyzed in 2018. RESULTS: Roughly 70% of Google Street View scenes had sidewalks. Among those, two thirds were in good condition. At least 5 obvious items of garbage or litter were present in 41% of Google Street View scenes. Maximum test-retest reliability indicated substantial agreement (κ ≥0.61) for all items. Inter-rater reliability of each item, generally, was lower than test-retest reliability. The median time to rate each item was 7.3 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with segment-based protocols, drop-and-spin virtual neighborhood auditing is quicker and similarly reliable for assessing built environment characteristics. Assessment of large geographies may be more feasible using drop-and-spin virtual auditing.
INTRODUCTION: Various built environment factors might influence certain health behaviors and outcomes. Reliable, resource-efficient methods that are feasible for assessing built environment characteristics across large geographies are needed for larger, more robust studies. This paper reports the item response prevalence, reliability, and rating time of a new virtual neighborhood audit protocol, drop-and-spin auditing, developed for assessment of walkability and physical disorder characteristics across large geographic areas. METHODS: Drop-and-spin auditing, a method where a Google Street View scene was rated by spinning 360° around a point location, was developed using a modified version of the virtual audit tool Computer Assisted Neighborhood Visual Assessment System. Approximately 8,000 locations within Essex County, New Jersey were assessed by 11 trained auditors. Using a standardized protocol, 32 built environment items per a location within Google Street View were audited. Test-retest and inter-rater κ statistics were from a 5% subsample of locations. Data were collected in 2017-2018 and analyzed in 2018. RESULTS: Roughly 70% of Google Street View scenes had sidewalks. Among those, two thirds were in good condition. At least 5 obvious items of garbage or litter were present in 41% of Google Street View scenes. Maximum test-retest reliability indicated substantial agreement (κ ≥0.61) for all items. Inter-rater reliability of each item, generally, was lower than test-retest reliability. The median time to rate each item was 7.3 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with segment-based protocols, drop-and-spin virtual neighborhood auditing is quicker and similarly reliable for assessing built environment characteristics. Assessment of large geographies may be more feasible using drop-and-spin virtual auditing.
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Charles J DiMaggio; Gina S Lovasi; Kathryn M Neckerman; Michael D M Bader; Julien O Teitler; Daniel M Sheehan; Darby W Jack; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Amanda Rzotkiewicz; Amber L Pearson; Benjamin V Dougherty; Ashton Shortridge; Nick Wilson Journal: Health Place Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Maura M Kepper; Melinda S Sothern; Katherine P Theall; Lauren A Griffiths; Richard A Scribner; Tung-Sung Tseng; Paul Schaettle; Jessica M Cwik; Erica Felker-Kantor; Stephanie T Broyles Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elizabeth D Nesoff; Adam J Milam; Keshia M Pollack; Frank C Curriero; Janice V Bowie; Andrea C Gielen; Debra M Furr-Holden Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Philippa Clarke; Jennifer Ailshire; Robert Melendez; Michael Bader; Jeffrey Morenoff Journal: Health Place Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Stephen J Mooney; Michael D M Bader; Gina S Lovasi; Julien O Teitler; Karestan C Koenen; Allison E Aiello; Sandro Galea; Emily Goldmann; Daniel M Sheehan; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Griet Vanwolleghem; Ariane Ghekiere; Greet Cardon; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Sara D'Haese; Carrie M Geremia; Matthieu Lenoir; James F Sallis; Hannah Verhoeven; Delfien Van Dyck Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.918
Authors: Charles C Branas; Eugenia South; Michelle C Kondo; Bernadette C Hohl; Philippe Bourgois; Douglas J Wiebe; John M MacDonald Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-02-26 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Stephen J Mooney; Mario Schootman; Andrew G Rundle; Adana A M Llanos; Bo Qin; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Xinyi Xu Journal: Spat Spatiotemporal Epidemiol Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Andrew G Rundle; Xinyi Xu; Stephen J Mooney; Mario Schootman; Bo Lu; Jason Roy; Antoinette M Stroup; Adana A M Llanos Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Daniel Wiese; Antoinette M Stroup; Aniruddha Maiti; Gerald Harris; Shannon M Lynch; Slobodan Vucetic; Victor H Gutierrez-Velez; Kevin A Henry Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Adana A M Llanos; Bo Qin; Laxmi Chavali; Yong Lin; Karen S Pawlish; Noreen Goldman; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Adana A M Llanos; Stephen J Mooney; Andrew G Rundle; Bo Qin; Yong Lin; Karen S Pawlish; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jesse J Plascak; Mario Schootman; Andrew G Rundle; Cathleen Xing; Adana A M Llanos; Antoinette M Stroup; Stephen J Mooney Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 5.310