Construct Validity of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale for Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The development of valid measures of built environments relevant for physical activity is an important step toward controlling the global epidemic of physical inactivity-related noncommunicable diseases and deaths. This study assessed the construct validity of a self-report neighborhood environment walkability scale adapted for Africa (NEWS-Africa), by examining relationships with self-reported walking for transportation and recreation using pooled data from six sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: NEWS was systematically adapted to assess urban, periurban, and rural environments in sub-Saharan Africa. Adults (n = 469, 18-85 yr, 49.7% women) from Cameroon, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda were purposively recruited from neighborhoods varying in walkability and socioeconomic status, with some from villages. Participants completed the 76-item (13 subscales) NEWS-Africa by structured interview and reported weekly minutes of walking for transport and recreation using items from the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall "walkability" index had a positive relationship with both walking for transportation (η = 0.020, P = 0.005) and recreation (η = 0.013, P = 0.028) in the pooled analyses. The mixed-use access and stranger danger scales were positively related with transport walking (η = 0.020, P = 0.006 and η = 0.021, P = 0.040, respectively). Proximity of recreational facilities (η = 0.016, P = 0.015), road/path connectivity (η = 0.025, P = 0.002), path infrastructure (η = 0.021, P = 0.005), and overall places for walking and cycling (η = 0.012, P = 0.029) scales were positively related to recreational walking. Country-specific results were mostly nonsignificant except for South Africa and Uganda. CONCLUSIONS: Of 14 NEWS-Africa scales, 7 were significantly related to walking behavior in pooled analyses, providing partial support for the construct validity of NEWS-Africa. However, effect sizes appeared to be lower than those from other continents. Further study with larger and more diverse samples is needed to determine whether the instrument performs well in each country.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".