Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Population Health Metrics
Published in: Population Health Metrics 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Assessing the psychometric and ecometric properties of neighborhood scales using adolescent survey data from urban and rural Scotland

Authors: Gina Martin, Joanna Inchley, Gerry Humphris, Candace Currie

Published in: Population Health Metrics | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Despite the well-established need for specific measurement instruments to examine the relationship between neighborhood conditions and adolescent well-being outcomes, few studies have developed scales to measure features of the neighborhoods in which adolescents reside. Moreover, measures of neighborhood features may be operationalised differently by adolescents living in different levels of urban/rurality. This has not been addressed in previous studies. The objectives of this study were to: 1) establish instruments to measure adolescent neighborhood features at both the individual and neighborhood level, 2) assess their psychometric and ecometric properties, 3) test for invariance by urban/rurality, and 4) generate neighborhood level scores for use in further analysis.

Methods

Data were from the Scottish 2010 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Survey, which included an over-sample of rural adolescents. The survey responses of interest came from questions designed to capture different facets of the local area in which each respondent resided. Intermediate data zones were used as proxies for neighborhoods. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha. Invariance was examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Multilevel models were used to estimate ecometric properties and generate neighborhood scores.

Results

Two constructs labeled neighborhood social cohesion and neighborhood disorder were identified. Adjustment was made to the originally specified model to improve model fit and measures of invariance. At the individual level, reliability was .760 for social cohesion and .765 for disorder, and between .524 and .571 for both constructs at the neighborhood level. Individuals in rural areas experienced greater neighborhood social cohesion and lower levels of neighborhood disorder compared with those in urban areas.

Conclusion

The scales are appropriate for measuring neighborhood characteristics experienced by adolescents across urban and rural Scotland, and can be used in future studies of neighborhoods and health. However, trade-offs between neighborhood sample size and reliability must be considered.
Footnotes
1
Ad hoc tests for multivariate normality were conducted for each urban/rurality type. Overall, the Mardia’s coefficient of multivariate kurtosis suggests non-normality in the sample (range: 4.65–15.35) [34]. Given this, additional models were conducted with asymptotically distribution-free (ADF) estimation (also known as weighted least squares). ADF does not require normality but studies have shown it is only useful for relatively simple models with a moderate to large sample size (some suggest n > 1000) [53‐55]. Results were similar to ML estimation but the difference in CFI between the metric model and structural model was -.012.
The majority of studies of invariance testing procedures have been undertaken using ML estimation. Also, there are no standards on appropriate tests and cut-offs for alternative estimation methods. There is some indication that ΔRMSEA performs well with ordinal data [56, 57].
 
Literature
1.
Piccolo RS, Duncan DT, Pearce N, McKinlay JB. The role of neighborhood characteristics in racial/ethnic disparities in type 2 diabetes: results from the Boston Area Community Health (BACH) survey. Soc Sci Med. 2015;130:79–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Aminzadeh K, Denny S, Utter J, Milfont TL, Ameratunga S, Teevale T, Clark T. Neighbourhood social capital and adolescent self-reported wellbeing in New Zealand: a multilevel analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2013;84:13–21.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Åslund C, Nilsson KW. Social capital in relation to alcohol consumption, smoking, and illicit drug use among adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Sweden. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:1–11.CrossRef
4.
Vowell PR. A partial test of an integrative control model: neighborhood context, social control, self-control, and youth violent behavior. Western Criminol Rev. 2007;8:1–15.
5.
Friche AAL, Diez-Roux AV, César CC, Xavier CC, Proietti FA, Caiaffa WT. Assessing the psychometric and ecometric properties of neighborhood scales in developing countries: Saude em Beaga Study, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2008–2009. J Urban Health. 2013;90:246–61.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Oliva A, Antolín L, López AM. Development and validation of a scale for the measurement of adolescents’ developmental assets in the neighborhood. Social Indic Res. 2012;106:563–76.CrossRef
7.
Moore S, Bockenholt U, Daniel M, Frohlich K, Kestens Y, Richard L. Social capital and core network ties: a validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra-and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health. Health Place. 2011;17:536–44.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T. Assessing“neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol. 2002;8:443–78.CrossRef
9.
Morrow V. Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well‐being of children and young people: a critical review. Sociol Rev. 1999;47:744–65.CrossRef
10.
Paiva PCP, de Paiva HN, de Oliveira Filho PM, Lamounier JA, e Ferreira EF, Ferreira RC, Kawachi I, Zarzar PM. Development and validation of a social capital questionnaire for adolescent students (SCQ-AS). PloS One. 2014;9:DOI: 10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0103785.
11.
Schaefer-McDaniel NJ. Conceptualizing social capital among young people: Towards a new theory. Children Youth Environm. 2004;14:153–72.
12.
Martin G, Gavine A, Inchley J, Currie C. Conceptualizing, measuring and evaluating constructs of the adolescent neighbourhood social environment: A systematic review. SSM-Population Health, 2017. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ssmph.​2017.​03.​002.
13.
Kawachi I, Kim D, Coutts A, Subramanian S. Commentary: Reconciling the three accounts of social capital. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:682–90.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Evenson KR, Sotres-Alvarez D, Herring AH, Messer L, Laraia BA, Rodríguez DA. Assessing urban and rural neighborhood characteristics using audit and GIS data: derivation and reliability of constructs. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:DOI: 10.​1186/​1479-5868-1186-1144.
15.
Choi Y, Harachi TW, Catalano RF. Neighborhoods, family, and substance use: Comparisons of the relations across racial and ethnic groups. Soc Serv Rev. 2006;80:675–704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Karcher MJ, Sass D. A multicultural assessment of adolescent connectedness: testing measurement invariance across gender and ethnicity. J Couns Psychol. 2010;57:274–89.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Tucker KL, Ozer DJ, Lyubomirsky S, Boehm JK. Testing for measurement invariance in the satisfaction with life scale: A comparison of Russians and North Americans. Social Indic Res. 2006;78:341–60.CrossRef
18.
Chen FF. What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;95:1005–18.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Van de Schoot R, Lugtig P, Hox J. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;9:486–92.CrossRef
20.
Raudenbush SW, Sampson RJ. Ecometrics: toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociol Methodol. 1999;29:1–41.CrossRef
21.
Currie C, Zanotti C, Morgan A, Currie D, De Looze M, Roberts C, Samdal O, Smith O, Barnekow V. Social determinants of health and well-being among young people: HBSC international report from the 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe (Health Policy for Children and Adolescents, No. 6); 2012.
22.
Levin KA, Dundas R, Miller M, McCartney G. Socioeconomic and geographic inequalities in adolescent smoking: a multilevel cross-sectional study of 15 year olds in Scotland. Soc Sci Med. 2014;107:162–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Currie C, Samdal O, Boyce W, Smith B. Health Behaviour in Scholl-Aged Childres: a World Health Organization Cross-National Study Reseaarch Protocol for the 2001/2002 Survey. Scotland: University of Edinburgh; 2001.
25.
Morgan A. Social capital as a health asset for young people’s health and wellbeing: definitions, measurement and theory. Solna: Karolinska Institutet; 2011.
26.
27.
Morrow V. Young people’s explanations and experiences of social exclusion: retrieving Bourdieu’s concept of social capital. Int J Sociol Social Policy. 2001;21:37–63.CrossRef
28.
De Clercq B, Vyncke V, Hublet A, Elgar FJ, Ravens-Sieberer U, Currie C, Hooghe M, Ieven A, Maes L. Social capital and social inequality in adolescents’ health in 601 Flemish communities: A multilevel analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:202–10.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vafaei A, Pickett W, Alvarado BE. Neighbourhood environment factors and the occurrence of injuries in Canadian adolescents: a validation study and exploration of structural confounding. BMJ Open. 2014;4:doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2014-004919.
30.
Nichol M, Janssen I, Pickett W. Associations between neighborhood safety, availability of recreational facilities, and adolescent physical activity among Canadian youth. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:442–50.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Fields A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 2005.
33.
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.CrossRef
34.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge; 2010.
35.
Rosay AB, Gottfredson DC, Armstrong TA, Harmon MA. Invariance of measures of prevention program effectiveness: A replication. J Quant Criminol. 2000;16:341–67.CrossRef
36.
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equation Model. 2002;9:233–55.CrossRef
37.
Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equation Model. 2007;14:464–504.CrossRef
38.
39.
Prins RG, Mohnen SM, van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Oenema A. Are neighbourhood social capital and availability of sports facilities related to sports participation among Dutch adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:DOI: 10.​1186/​1479-5868-1189-1190.
40.
Fagan AA, Wright EM, Pinchevsky GM. A multi-level analysis of the impact of neighborhood structural and social factors on adolescent substance use. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;153:180–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Mujahid MS, Roux AVD, Morenoff JD, Raghunathan T. Assessing the measurement properties of neighborhood scales: from psychometrics to ecometrics. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:858–67.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Ruijsbroek A, Droomers M, Hardyns W, Groenewegen PP, Stronks K. The interplay between neighbourhood characteristics: The health impact of changes in social cohesion, disorder and unsafety feelings. Health Place. 2016;39:1–8.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hox JJ, Moerbeek M, van de Schoot R. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge; 2010.
44.
Mackenbach J, Lakerveld J, Lenthe F, Kawachi I, McKee M, Rutter H, Glonti K, Compernolle S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Feuillet T. Neighbourhood social capital: measurement issues and associations with health outcomes. Obes Rev. 2016;17:96–107.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Katz MH. Multivariable Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
46.
Finch H. Estimation of item response theory parameters in the presence of missing data. J Educ Meas. 2008;45:225–45.CrossRef
47.
Jackson N, Denny S, Sheridan J, Zhao J, Ameratunga S. The role of neighborhood disadvantage, physical disorder, and collective efficacy in adolescent alcohol use: a multilevel path analysis. Health Place. 2016;41:24–33.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Drukker M, Kaplan C, Feron F, Van Os J. Children’s health-related quality of life, neighbourhood socio-economic deprivation and social capital. A contextual analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:825–41.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Van Gundy KT, Stracuzzi NF, Rebellon CJ, Tucker CJ, Cohn ES. Perceived community cohesion and the stress process in youth. Rural Sociol. 2011;76:293–318.CrossRef
51.
Poortinga W. Social capital: an individual or collective resource for health? Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:292–302.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Gilbert KL, Quinn SC, Goodman RM, Butler J, Wallace JM. A meta-analysis of social capital and health: A case for needed research. J Health Psychol. 2013;18:1385–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. United States of America: Information Age Publishing, Inc; 2006. p. 269–314.
54.
Jones JA, Waller NG. The normal-theory and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF) covariance matrix of standardized regression coefficients: theoretical extensions and finite sample behavior. Psychometrika. 2015;80:365–78.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:466–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Koziol NA. Evaluating measurement invariance with censored ordinal data: A monte carlo comparison of alternative model estimators and scales of measurement. University of Nebraska, 2010.
57.
Ranøyen I, Stenseng F, Klöckner CA, Wallander J, Jozefiak T. Familial aggregation of anxiety and depression in the community: the role of adolescents’ self-esteem and physical activity level (the HUNT Study). BMC Public Health. 2015;15:DOI: 10.​1186/​s12889-12015-11431-12880.
Metadata
Title
Assessing the psychometric and ecometric properties of neighborhood scales using adolescent survey data from urban and rural Scotland
Authors
Gina Martin
Joanna Inchley
Gerry Humphris
Candace Currie
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Population Health Metrics / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1478-7954
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-017-0129-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Population Health Metrics 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Methodological choices affect cancer incidence rates: a cohort study

Research

Quantifying the global contribution of alcohol consumption to cardiomyopathy

Research

Mortality trends in Australian Aboriginal peoples and New Zealand Māori

Research

Incidence and survival of end-stage kidney disease due to polycystic kidney disease in Australia and New Zealand (1963–2014)

Research

Impact of HPV vaccination: health gains in the Italian female population

Research

Self-reported general health, physical distress, mental distress, and activity limitation by US county, 1995-2012