Browsing by Subject "Urban population"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A comparison between perceived rurality and established geographic rural status among Indiana residents
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Bhattacharyya, Oindrila; Rawl, Susan M.; Dickinson, Stephanie L.; Haggstrom, David A.; Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    The study assessed the association and concordance of the traditional geography-based Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes to individuals' self-reported rural status per a survey scale. The study included residents from rural and urban Indiana, seen at least once in a statewide health system in the past 12 months. Surveyed self-reported rural status of individuals obtained was measured using 6 items with a 7-point Likert scale. Cronbach's alpha was used to measure the internal consistency between the 6 survey response items, along with exploratory factor analysis to evaluate their construct validity. Perceived rurality was compared with RUCA categorization, which was mapped to residential zip codes. Association and concordance between the 2 measures were calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (Gwet's AC), respectively. Primary self-reported data were obtained through a cross-sectional, statewide, mail-based survey, administered from January 2018 through February 2018, among a random sample of 7979 individuals aged 18 to 75, stratified by rural status and race. All 970 patients who completed the survey answered questions regarding their perceived rurality. Cronbach's alpha value of 0.907 was obtained indicating high internal consistency among the 6 self-perceived rurality items. Association of RUCA categorization and self-reported geographic status was moderate, ranging from 0.28 to 0.41. Gwet's AC ranged from -0.11 to 0.26, indicating poor to fair agreement between the 2 measures based on the benchmark scale of reliability. Geography-based and self-report methods are complementary in assessing rurality. Individuals living in areas of relatively high population density may still self-identify as rural, or individuals with long commutes may self-identify as urban.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Observer ratings of neighborhoods: comparison of two methods
    (Springer Nature, 2013-10-29) Andresen, Elena M.; Malmstrom, Theodore K.; Schootman, Mario; Wolinsky, Fredric D.; Miller, J. Philip; Miller, Douglas K.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Although neighborhood characteristics have important relationships with health outcomes, direct observation involves imperfect measurement. The African American Health (AAH) study included two observer neighborhood rating systems (5-item Krause and 18-item AAH Neighborhood Assessment Scale [NAS]), initially fielded at two different waves. Good measurement characteristics were previously shown for both, but there was more rater variability than desired. In 2010 both measures were re-fielded together, with enhanced training and field methods implemented to decrease rater variability while maintaining psychometric properties. Methods: AAH included a poor inner city and more heterogeneous suburban areas. Four interviewers rated 483 blocks, with 120 randomly-selected blocks rated by two interviewers. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis of scales and tested the Krause (5-20 points), AAH 18-item NAS (0-28 points), and a previous 7-item and new 5-item versions of the NAS (0-17 points, 0-11 points). Retest reliability for items (kappa) and scales (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]) were calculated overall and among pre-specified subgroups. Linear regression assessed interviewer effects on total scale scores and assessed concurrent validity on lung and lower body functions. Mismeasurement effects on self-rated health were also assessed. Results: Scale scores were better in the suburbs than in the inner city. ICC was poor for the Krause scale (ICC=0.19), but improved if the retests occurred within 10 days (ICC=0.49). The 7- and 5-item NAS scales had better ICCs (0.56 and 0.62, respectively), and were higher (0.71 and 0.73) within 10 days. Rater variability for the Kraus and 5- and 7-item NAS scales was 1-3 points (compared to the supervising rater). Concurrent validity was modest, with residents living in worse neighborhood conditions having worse function. Unadjusted estimates were biased towards the null compared with measurement-error corrected estimates. Conclusions: Enhanced field protocols and rater training did not improve measurement quality. Specifically, retest reliability and interviewer variability remained problematic. Measurement error partially reduced, but did not eliminate concurrent validity, suggesting there are robust associations between neighborhood characteristics and health outcomes. We conclude that the 5-item AAH NAS has sufficient reliability and validity for further use. Additional research on the measurement properties of environmental rating methods is encouraged.