METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The IPEN Adolescent observational, cross-sectional, multicountry study involves recruiting adolescent participants (ages 11-19 years) and one parent/guardian from neighbourhoods selected to ensure wide variations in walkability and socioeconomic status using common protocols and measures. Fifteen geographically, economically and culturally diverse countries, from six continents, participated: Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hong Kong SAR, India, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Portugal, Spain and USA. Countries provided survey and accelerometer data (15 countries), GIS data (11), global positioning system data (10), and pedestrian environment audit data (8). A sample of n=6950 (52.6% female; mean age=14.5, SD=1.7) adolescents provided survey data, n=4852 had 4 or more 8+ hours valid days of accelerometer data, and n=5473 had GIS measures. Physical activity and sedentary behaviour were measured by waist-worn ActiGraph accelerometers and self-reports, and body mass index was used to categorise weight status.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from each study site's Institutional Review Board for their in-country studies. Informed assent by adolescents and consent by parents was obtained for all participants. No personally identifiable information was transferred to the IPEN coordinating centre for pooled datasets. Results will be communicated through standard scientific channels and findings used to advance the science of environmental correlates of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status, with the ultimate goal to stimulate and guide actions to create more activity-supportive environments internationally.
Methods: Databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Magiran, SID, IranDoc, and IranMedex were evaluated systematically using the terms "HHI," "psychometric," "validity," "reliability," and related terms (with the use of OR and AND operators) and no restrictions on the year of publication. A total of 13 eligible studies were found published between 1992 and 2018 in the USA, Portugal, Switzerland, Iran, Germany, Petersburg, Japan, the Netherlands, Lima, Peru, and Norway. The methodology used in the available studies included principal component analysis (n = 6), maximum likelihood estimation (n = 5), and principal axis factoring (n = 1). One study did not point the methodology.
Results: Four studies reported the total extracted variances to be less than 50%, six studies reported variance between 50% and 60%, and three papers reported variance that exceeded 60%. Of the papers that examined the factor structure of the HHI, two studies reported a one-factor solution, seven reported two factors, and four reported a three-factor solution. Although the HHI is the most widely translated and psychometrically tested tool in languages other than English, psychometric variations in factor solutions remain inconsistent.
Conclusion: Findings highlight the need for future research that appraises the validity of the HHI in different countries, and how the measure relates to other scales that evaluate hope.