Table 3

Ratings for each of the scales included in the review
Scale name Quality score* (out of 5) Followed an a priori explicit theoretical framework Reported efforts towards content validation Reliability scores above 0.7 At least 75% of the Hypotheses regarding relation-ships with the construct under consideration were confirmed? Conceptual dimensional structure was supported by means of factor analysis?
Adapted scale from Dahly and Adair 2007 (Allender 2011) [8] 2 - poor + - - + -
Adopted the NUTS framework to measure urbanisation (Vavken et al. 2011) [35] 1 - poor - - - + -
Urbanicity scale (Jones et al. 2010) [34] 4 - high - + + + +
Urbanicity scale developed by Mendes and Popkin 2005 (Antai et al. 2010) [37] 1 - poor - - - + -
Urbanicity index (Van de Poel 2012) [20] 2 - poor - - - + +
Adaptation of Dahly and Adair scale (Allender et al. 2010) [19] 3 - medium - + + + -
Multi-component urbanicity scale for Metro Cebu (Dahly and Adair2007) [3] 3 - medium - + + + -
Factor analysis as a tool to measure urbanization (McDade and Adair 2001) [4] 2 - poor - - - + +
Urbanization index (Liu et al. 2003) [36] 1 - poor - - - + -
Urbanicity index (Van de Poel 2009) [17] 2 - poor - - - + +

– not assessed + assessed and positive result; *Quality Score calculated by assigning 1 point for each criteria listed as present (‘+’); Quality ranking: ≤2 = poor quality; 3 = medium quality; ≥ 4 = high quality.

Cyril et al.

Cyril et al. BMC Public Health 2013 13:513   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-513

Open Data