Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Tetali, S; Edwards, P; Murthy, GV; Roberts, I
Publisher: BioMed Central
Journal: BMC Medical Research Methodology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Mode, Research Article, Hyderabad, Distance, Active transport, Validity, India, Questionnaire development
Background Although some 300 million Indian children travel to school every day, little is known about how they get there. This information is important for transport planners and public health authorities. This paper presents the development of a self-administered questionnaire and examines its reliability and validity in estimating distance and mode of travel to school in a low resource urban setting. Methods We developed a questionnaire on children?s travel to school. We assessed test re-test reliability by repeating the questionnaire one week later (n?=?61). The questionnaire was improved and re-tested (n?=?68). We examined the convergent validity of distance estimates by comparing estimates based on the nearest landmark to children?s homes with a ?gold standard? based on one-to-one interviews with children using detailed maps (n?=?50). Results Most questions showed fair to almost perfect agreement. Questions on usual mode of travel (? 0.73- 0.84) and road injury (? 0.61- 0.72) were found to be more reliable than those on parental permissions (? 0.18- 0.30), perception of safety (? 0.00- 0.54), and physical activity (? -0.01- 0.07). The distance estimated by the nearest landmark method was not significantly different than the in-depth method for walking , 52?m [95?% CI -32?m to 135?m], 10?% of the mean difference, and for walking and cycling combined, 65?m [95?% CI -30?m to 159?m], 11?% of the mean difference. For children who used motorized transport (excluding private school bus), the nearest landmark method under-estimated distance by an average of 325 metres [95?% CI ?664?m to 1314?m], 15?% of the mean difference. Conclusions A self-administered questionnaire was found to provide reliable information on the usual mode of travel to school, and road injury, in a small sample of children in Hyderabad, India. The ?nearest landmark? method can be applied in similar low-resource settings, for a reasonably accurate estimate of the distance from a child?s home to school. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0086-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India.
    • 2. Nelson NM, Woods CB. Neighborhood perceptions and active commuting to school among adolescent boys and girls. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(2):257-66.
    • 3. Wong BYM, F.G., Buliung R GIS measured environmental correlates of active school transport: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2011. 8(39).
    • 4. Bringolf-Isler B, Grize L, Mader U, Ruch N, Sennhauser FH, Braun-Fahrlander C. Personal and environmental factors associated with active commuting to school in Switzerland. Prev Med. 2008;46(1):67-73.
    • 5. NCSRTS., Safe Routes to School Travel Data: A Look at Baseline Results from Parent Surveys and Student Travel Tallies 2010.
    • 6. Zhou H, Z.J., Hsu P, Rouse J., Identifying Factors Affecting the Number of Students Walking or Biking to School. ITE Journal, 2009. 79(10): p. 40-44.
    • 7. Panter JR et al. Neighborhood, route, and school environments and children's active commuting. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(3):268-78.
    • 8. DiGuiseppi C et al. Determinants of car travel on daily journeys to school: cross sectional survey of primary school children. BMJ. 1998;316(7142):1426-8.
    • 9. Ziviani J, Scott J, Wadley D. Walking to school: incidental physical activity in the daily occupations of Australian children. Occup Ther Int. 2004;11(1):1-11.
    • 10. Dalton MA et al. Built environment predictors of active travel to school among rural adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(3):312-9.
    • 11. Roger L. Mackett, L.L., James Paskins, Jill Turbin. , The therapeutic value of children's everyday travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2005. 39(2-3): p. 205-219.
    • 12. Lubans, D.R., et al., The relationship between active travel to school and health-related fitness in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2011. 8(5).
    • 13. Panter JR et al. Attitudes, social support and environmental perceptions as predictors of active commuting behaviour in school children. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(1):41-8.
    • 14. Duncan MJ, M.W., GIS or GPS? A comparison of two methods for assessing route taken during active transport Am J Prev Med, 2007. 33: p. 51-53.
    • 15. McDonald NC. Children's mode choice for the school trip : the role of distance and school location in walking to school. Transportation. 2008;35(1):23-5.
    • 16. D'Haese S et al. Criterion distances and environmental correlates of active commuting to school in children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:88.
    • 17. Timperio A, B.K., Salmon J, Roberts R, Giles-Corti B, Simmons D, et al. , Personal, family, social, and environmental correlates of active commuting to school Am J Prev Med, 2006. 30(1): p. 45-51.
    • 18. Faulkner G, S.M., Buliung R, Wong B, Mitra R School travel and children's physical activity: a cross-sectional study examining the influence of distance. BMC Public Health, 2013. 13: p. 1166.
    • 19. Government of India. Hyderabad city census 2011 data. . June 2014]; Available from: http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/392-hyderabad.html.
    • 20. Mea H. One false move… a study of children's independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute; 1990.
    • 21. Hillman M, A., J., & Whitelegg, J., One false move: A study of children's independent mobility. London: PSI Publishing. 1990.
    • 22. Central Board of Secondary Education, India. Affiliation Bye-Laws, Chapter -I 1988; Available from: http://cbse.nic.in/affili~1/aff.pdf.
    • 23. Google Earth [http://www.google.com/earth/]
    • 24. Google Maps [https://www.google.com/maps/preview]
    • 25. Landis JR, K.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 1977. 33(1): p. 159-74.
    • 26. Bland M. An Introduction to Medical Statistics. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications; 1993.
    • 27. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/29/business/zippr-india-smart-business/.
    • 28. Noreen C McDonald, Amanda E Dwelley, Tabitha S Combs, Kelly R Evenson, Richard H Winters. Reliability and validity of the Safe Routes to school parent and student surveys. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8: 56. Published online 2011 June 8. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-56 PMCID: PMC3126753.
    • 29. Cinnamon J, Schuurman N. Injury surveillance in low-resource settings using Geospatial and Social Web technologies. Int J Health Geogr. 2010;9:25.
    • 30. Lozano-Fuentes S, Elizondo-Quiroga D, Farfan-Ale JA, Lorono-Pino MA, Garcia-Rejon J, Gomez-Carro S. et al. Use of Google Earth to strengthen public health capacity and facilitate management of vector-borne diseases in resource-poor environments. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(9):718-25.
    • 31. Kamadjeu R. Tracking the polio virus down the Congo River: a case study on the use of Google Earth in public health planning and mapping. Int J Health Geogr. 2009;8:4.
    • 32. Google Earth Imagery [http://gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2008/02/ about_google_earth_imagery.html]
    • 33. Larsen K, Gilliland J, Hess P, Tucker P, Irwin J, He M. The influence of the physical environment and sociodemographic characteristics on children's mode of travel to and from school. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):520-6.
    • 34. Guthold R, Cowan MJ, Autenrieth CS, Kann L, Riley LM. Physical activity and sedentary behavior among schoolchildren: a 34-country comparison. J Pediatr. 2010;157(1):43-9. e1.
    • 35. Dandona R, Kumar GA, Dandona L. Traffic law enforcement in Hyderabad, India. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2005;12(3):167-76.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • WT

Cite this article