↓ Skip to main content

Validation and comparison study of three urbanicity scales in a Thailand context

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation and comparison study of three urbanicity scales in a Thailand context
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2704-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wiroj Jiamjarasrangsi, Wichai Aekplakorn, Thosporn Vimolkej

Abstract

Validity and reliability of an urbanicity scale is of utmost importance in developing effective strategies to minimize adverse social and health consequences of increased urbanization. A number of urbanicity scales for the quantitative assessment of the "static" feature of an urban environment has been invented and validated by the original developers. However, their comparability and robustness when utilized in another study context were not verified. This study aimed to examine the comparability, validity, and reliability of three urbanicity scales proposed by Dahly and Adair, Jones-Smith and Popkin, and Novak et al. in a Thailand context. Urban characteristics data for 537 communities throughout Thailand were obtained from authoritative sources, and urbinicity scores were calculated according to the original developers' algorithms with some modifications to accommodate local available data. Comparability, dimensionality, internal consistency, and criterion-related and construct validities of the scores were then determined. All three scales were highly correlated, but Dahly and Adair's and Jones-Smith and Popkin's were more comparable. Only Dahly and Adair's scale achieved the unidimensionality assumption. Internal consistency ranged from very poor to high, based on their Chonbach's alpha and the corrected item-scale correlation coefficients. All three scales had good criterion-related validity (when compared against the official urban-rural dichotomy and four-category urbanicity classification) and construct validity (in terms of their relation to the mean per capita monthly income and body mass index). This study's results ensure the utility of these three urbanicity scales as valid instruments for examining the social and health impacts of urbanicity/urbanization, but caution must be applied with comparisons of urbanicity levels across different studies when different urbanicity scales are applied.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Thailand 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Researcher 7 17%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 24%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Psychology 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,436,183
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,868
of 14,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,886
of 395,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#211
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.