Testing the Reliability of Neighborhood-Specific Measures of Physical Activity Among Canadian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Capturing neighborhood-specific physical activity is necessary for advancing understanding about the relations between neighborhood walkability and physical activity. This study examined the test-retest reliability of previously developed items (from the Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire) for capturing setting-specific physical activity among Canadian adults. METHODS: Randomly sampled adults (n = 117) participated in two telephone-interviews 2 to 5 days apart. Respondents were asked a series of items capturing frequency and duration of transportation-related walking, recreational walking, moderate and vigorous-intensity physical activity undertaken inside and outside the neighborhood in a usual week. The test-test reliability of reported physical activity levels were then examined using Intraclass and Spearman's rank correlations, kappa coefficients, and overall agreement. RESULTS: Participation, frequency, and the duration of transportation-related and recreational walking and vigorous-intensity physical activity inside and outside the neighborhood showed moderate to excellent test-retest reliability. Moderate reliability was found for moderate-intensity physical activity undertaken inside (k = 0.48; ICC frequency = 0.38; ICC duration = 0.39) and outside (k = 0.51; ICC frequency = 0.79; ICC duration = 0.31) the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS: Neighborhood-specific physical activity items administered by telephone-interview are reliable and are therefore appropriate for use in future studies that examining neighborhood walkability and physical activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".