Table 1

Subscales on the NIK Self-Report Survey used in the present report, with descriptions, scoring, and internal consistency, Seattle and San Diego, 2007-2009
Name # Items Example items, response options, and scale development Alpha Mean (S.D.) or proportions
Predictor variables*
Getting Around in Your Neighborhood[19] 22 (5 subscales) Subjective evaluation of ease or difficulty of traveling in neighborhood due to various issues: “Parking is difficult; …There are sidewalks on most streets; … There are trees along streets.” Each item scored on 4-point Likert from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Subscales: i) street connectivity; ii) walking/cycling facilities; iii) neighborhood aesthetics; iv) traffic safety; v) safety against crime. Subscales adapted from previous research [19] Scale i: .42 2.76 (0.76)
Scale ii: .70 2.53 (0.88)
Scale iii: .81 3.03 (0.66)
Scale iv: .60 2.37 (0.51)
Scale v: .82 2.07 (0.66)
Proximity to Locations[19] 25 (2 subscales) “About how long would it take you to walk from your home to the nearest places listed?” Scale: from 1 (1–5 minutes) to 5 (31+ minutes) or 6 (Don’t know). Reverse recoded per [21] to indicate proximity to locations. Subscales: i) Stores/services and ii) Recreation areas (swimming pool; indoor recreation facility; water recreation areas; trails; basketball court; other fields/courts; parks; playgrounds; schools with available facilities). Scale i: .92 2.67 (0.92)
Scale ii: .84 2.55 (0.82)
Barriers to Walking and Biking[17] 14 (2 subscales) “It is difficult for my child to walk or bike to the closest park or playground because… there are no sidewalks; …the route is boring; …my child has too much stuff to carry.” Scale: 4-point Likert from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).Subscales: i) Logistics ii) Route characteristics. Scale i: .77 1.62 (0.55)
Scale ii: .79 1.91 (0.70)
Barriers to Activity in Your Neighborhood[17] 9 (2 subscales) “It is difficult for my child to be active in the local park or the streets/neighborhood near our home because… there is no choice of activities; …there is no equipment; …it is not safe because of traffic.” Scale: 4-point Likert from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree).Subscales: i) Perceived lack of appropriate play areas; ii) Crime activity. Scale i: .81 1.81 (0.67)
Scale ii: .72 1.57 (0.73)
Outcome Measures**
Neighborhood activity[17] 4 “How often is your child physically active: In your driveway or alley? …In a local street, sidewalk, or vacant lot?” Options: 1 (Never) to 6 (4 days/week or more). Recoded to indicate number of times per month, and numeric responses summed.The total was dichotomized at 4 days per week (16 days per month) to indicate physical activity in neighborhood. .76 NA
Park activity[17] 4 “How often is your child physically active in/at the following locations: Trails/paths? …Small public park? …Large public park? …Open space?” Options: 1 (Never) to 6 (4 times/week or more). All 4 items recoded, summed and dichotomized at 2+ days per week to indicate any activity in parks/trails/open areas. .67 NA
60+ minute activity days (outside of school)[17] 2 “How many days is/was your child physical activity for a total of at least 60 minutes per day (do not include school based activities)?” (Scored: 0–7 days). Two items: i) the past seven days; ii) Over a typical week. Averaged and then dichotomized at 5 days/week. .93 NA

NA = Not applicable due to dichotomous nature of variable.

* Note: All predictor variables were directionally coded so that a higher number indicated an environment more conducive to being physically active.

** See [16] for full questionnaire set.

Tappe et al.

Tappe et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2013 10:39   doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-39

Open Data