Psychometric Properties of The Turkish Adaption of Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale in Adults

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to examine the reliability and validity of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) (Cerin et al., 2006) among Turkish adults. Participants average age for female were (35,23±9,51) and for male (37,95±10,33). For the construct validity, firstly Exploratory Factor Analyses (n=235) and then Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) (n=358) on data from adults were applied. According to the EFA results, the original 6 subscales turned into five subscales related to NEWS. The subscales were; access to services and street connectivity (5 items), infrastructure for walking/cycling (6 items), aesthetics (4 items), traffic safety (3 items), and crime safety (3 items). Confirmatory factor analysis results with LISREL (Schumaker & Lomax, 2010) showed that the fit indexes are; for chi-square fit test [χ2/sd=2.13, CFI=0.98, RMR=0.86 IFI=0.98, GFI=0.94 and RMSEA=0.06]. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for internal consistency has been calculated between 0.74 and 0.91 for the two descriptive subscales. The model fit indices and reliability findings showed that the instrument is appropriate for evaluating the short version of NEWS for Turkish adults.

Keywords

• Neighborhood Environment Walkability
• Physical Activity
• Adult
• Walking

Project Number

Proje No: TYL – 2016/844

Yetişkinlerde Yakın Çevrede Yürünebilirlik Anketinin Türkçe Uyarlamasının Psikometrik Özellikleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı Yetişkinlerde Yakın Çevre Yürünebilirlik Anketinin (YÇYA) (Cerin vd., 2006) kısa formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliğini incelemektir. Çalışmaya katılan yetişkinlerin ortalamaları kadınlarda (yaş: 35,23±9,51) iken erkeklerin (yaş: 37,95±10,33) olmuştur. Elde edilen veriler Yakın Çevre Yürünebilirlik Anketi ile toplanmıştır. Keşfedici Faktör Analizi (KFA) (n=235) ile incelenen verilere Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi (DFA) (n=358) uygulanarak ölçeğin doğruluğu test edilmiştir. KFA ile elde edilen verilere göre 6 yapılı YÇYA 5 alt boyutlu bir yapıya dönüşmüştür. Bu alt boyutlar; ulaşım (5 madde), yürüyüş ve bisiklet (6 madde), estetik (4 madde), trafik güvenliği (3 madde) ile suç güvenliği (3 madde) şeklinde olmuştur. DFA, LISREL analizi bulgularına göre iyi uyum indekslerine [χ2/sd=2.13, CFI=0.98, RMR=0.86 IFI=0.98, GFI=0.94 ve RMSEA=0.06] ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca, betimleyici iki alt boyutun iç tutarlılığını incelemek amacıyla Cronbach alfa değerlerine bakılmış ve 0.74 ile 0.91 olduğu belirlenmiştir. Uyum indeksleri ve güvenirlik değerlerine göre YÇYA kısa formunun Türk yetişkin örnekleminde geçerli ve güvenilir bir araç olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Yakın Çevre Yürünebilirlik Algısı
• Fiziksel Aktivite
• Yetişkin
• Yürüme

Supporting Institution

Bu çalışma Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi desteğiyle hazırlanmıştır. Çalışmanın bir bölümü 8. Uluslararası Eğitimde Araştırmalar Kongresinde (Manisa, 2018) yayımlanmıştır.

Project Number

Proje No: TYL – 2016/844

References

1. Adlakha, D., Hipp, J. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2016). Adaptation and evaluation of the neighborhood environment walkability scale in India (NEWS-India). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), 401.doi: 10.3390/ijerph13040401
2. American College of Sports Medicine (2009) Progression models resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 4(3), 657-708. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670
3. Bancroft, C., Joshi, S., Rundle, A., Hutson, M., Chong, C., Weiss, C.C., Genkinger, J.,Neckerman, K., Lovasi, G. (2015). Association of proximity and density of parks and objectively measured physical activity in the United States: a systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 138, 22–30.
4. Bauman, A.E., Reis, R.S., Sallis, J.F., Wells, J.C., Loos, R.J.F., & Martin, B.W. (2012). Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not?. Lancet, 380(9838), 258-271, ISSN 0140-6736, Elsevier Science Inc, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1.
5. Casey. M.M., Eime, R.M., Payne, W.R., Harvey, J.T. (2009). Using socioecological approach to examine participation in sport and physical activity among rural adolescent girls. Qualitative Health Research, 19(7), 881-893.
6. Cengiz C. (2011). Sosyo-Ekolojik Uygulamanın Kırsal Alandaki Öğrencilerin Fiziksel Aktivite Bilgisi Ve Davranışlarına Etkileri. Yayımlanmış Doktora tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
7. Cengiz, C., Ince, M.L. (2014). Impact of social-ecologic intervention on physical activity knowledge and behaviors of rural students. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 11(8), 1565-1572.doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2013-0080
8. Cerin, E., Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Frank, L.D. (2006). Neighborhood environment walkability scale: validity and development of a short form. Medical Science Sports Exercise, 38(9),1682-1691.

9. Cerin E, Leslie E, Owen N, Bauman A (2008). An Australian version of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: validity evidence. Measurement Physical Education & Exercise Science, 12, 31-51.
10. Cerin E, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Sallis JF (2009). Cross-validation of the factorial structure of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) and its abbreviated form (NEWS-A). International Journal of Bevahioral Nutrition Physical Activity, 6, 32.doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-32
11. Elmas S, Hacısoftaoğlu İ, Aşçı H. (2016) Kadınlara özgü mekanlarda spor yapmak: sosyal ekolojik model. Türkiye Klinikleri Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 76-86.doi: 10.5336/sportsci.2016-51226
12. Golden SD, Earp JAL. (2012) Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health Education & Behavior, 39(3), 364–372. ISSN 1090-1981, Sage Publications Inc, https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198111418634
13. He, G., Huang, W., Salmon, J., & Wong, S. H. (2021). Adaptation and evaluation of the neighborhood environment walkability scale for youth for Chinese children (NEWS-CC). BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10530-4
14. Kok, G., Gottlieb, N.H., Matthew, C., Smerecnik, C. (2008). The ecological approach in health promotion programs: A decade later. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22(6), 437-442. doi: https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.22.6.437
15. Kilanowski JF, RN, APRN, CPNP, FAAN (2017). Breadth of the Socio-Ecological Model, Journal of Agromedicine, 22(4), 295-29.doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2017.1358971.
16. Lang, S., Gibson, S., Wei Ng, K., & Truby, H. (2020). Understanding children and young people's experiences pursuing weight loss maintenance using the Socio-ecological Model: A qualitative systematic literature review.. Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, ISSN 1467-789X. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.13172.
17. Martínez-Martínez, O.A., & Ramírez-López, A. (2018). Walkability and the built environment: Validation of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) for urban areas in Mexico. Quality & Quantity, 52(2), 703-718. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0483-x
18. McCormack, G., Shiell, A. (2011). In search of causality: a systematic review of the relationshipbetween the built environment and physical activity among adults. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8, 125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-125.
19. Mcleroy, K., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A. (1988). An ecological perspective an health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377.
20. Mieziene, Brigita, Emeljanovas, Arunas, Tilindiene, Ilona, Tumynaite, Laura, Trinkuniene, Laima, & Kawachi, Ichiro (2021). The Direct and Indirect Relationships of Environmental, Interpersonal and Personal Factors with High School Students Physical Activity: An Ecological Approach.. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(3), ISSN 1660-4601. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18030874
21. Naylor PJ, MacDonald HM, Reed KE, McKay HA Action schools! BC: A socioecological approach to modifying chronic disease risk factors in elementary school children. Preventing Chronic Disease Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy. 2006;3(2):1-8.
22. Oyeyemi, A. L., Sallis, J. F., Deforche, B., Oyeyemi, A. Y., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Dyck, D. (2013). Evaluation of the neighborhood environment walkability scale in Nigeria. International journal of health geographics, 12(1), 1-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-12-16
23. Pate R, Pratt M, Blair S, Haskell W. (1995). Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the centers of disease control and prevention and the American Collage of Sport Medicine. Journal the American Medical Assocition, 273(5), 402-407.doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290054029
24. Richard, Lucie, Gauvin, Lise, & Raine, Kim (2011). Ecological Models Revisited: Their Uses and Evolution in Health Promotion Over Two Decades. Annual Review Of Public Health, Vol 32, 32, 307-326, ISSN 0163-7525, Annual Reviews. doi. https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101141
25. Sallis, J.F., Cerin, E., Conway, T.L., Adam, M.A., Frank, L.D., Pratt, M., Salvo, D.,Schipperijn, J., Smith, G., Cain, K.L., Davey, R., Kerr, J., Lai, P.C., Mitas, J., Reis, R.,Sarmiento, O.L., Schofield, G., Troelsen, J., Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, L.,Owen, N. (2016a). Physical activity in relation to urban environments in 14 citiesworldwide: a cross-sectional study. Lancet, 387, 2201–2217.
26. Sallis, J.F., Bull, F., Guthold, R., Heath, G.W., Inoue, S., Kelly, P., Oyeyemi, A.L., Perez,L.G., Richards, J., Hallal, P.C.(2016b). Progress in physical activity over the Olympicquadrennium. Lancet, 388 (10051), 1325–1336.
27. Sallis JF, Cervero R, Ascher, WW, Henderson K, Kraft, MK, Kerr J. (2006). An ecological approach to creating more physically active communities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 297-322. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102100
28. Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 282-298.doi: https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.282
29. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [Internet]. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. [cited 2020 May 26]. Available from: https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf#page=56.
30. Yıldırım, G., İnce, M.L., Müftüler, M. (2012). Physical activity and perceptions of neighborhood walkability among Turkish women in low and high socio-economic environments an exploratory study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 115(2), 661-675.
31. World Health Organization. (2018). Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272722. Accessed 5 Mart 2019.