IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/clarxx/v44y2019i6p688-701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Seniors’ Outdoor Survey (SOS Tool): comparing ratings and reliability between Italy and the USA

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Bardenhagen
  • Giulio Senes
  • Susan Rodiek
  • Cristina Ferrara
  • Adeleh Nejati
  • Natalia Fumagalli
  • Antonio Giornelli
  • Chanam Lee

Abstract

To test applicability of an environmental assessment instrument in new settings, the ratings and reliability of the SOS Tool were compared in diverse settings with a similar climate: Milan, Italy; and Bryan/College Station, Texas, USA. This instrument evaluates physical environment support for outdoor usage by residents at senior facilities. Two trained raters assigned ratings (using a 1–7 scale) to the 60 instrument items at each setting (Italy: 94 outdoor spaces, 67 facilities; US: 22 outdoor spaces, 12 facilities). Overall mean ratings were similar across both sites (6% difference), and three of the five domains had comparable mean ratings. Mean inter-rater reliability was good in both settings but higher in Italy (ICC = .97 versus .82). Despite geographic/cultural differences, mean ratings for most items and domains were surprisingly similar between Italy and the US. This finding, and the high inter-rater reliability found in both settings, suggest this instrument may be useful in a wide range of settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Bardenhagen & Giulio Senes & Susan Rodiek & Cristina Ferrara & Adeleh Nejati & Natalia Fumagalli & Antonio Giornelli & Chanam Lee, 2019. "The Seniors’ Outdoor Survey (SOS Tool): comparing ratings and reliability between Italy and the USA," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(6), pages 688-701, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:clarxx:v:44:y:2019:i:6:p:688-701
    DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2018.1493445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01426397.2018.1493445
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01426397.2018.1493445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:clarxx:v:44:y:2019:i:6:p:688-701. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/clar20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.