Romanow, Nicole T.R.Couperthwaite, Amy B.McCormack, Gavin R.Nettel-Aguirre, AlbertoRowe, Brian H.Hagel, Brent E.2015-08-202015-08-202013-01-30Romanow, N. T., Couperthwaite, A. B., McCormack, G. R., Nettel-Aguirre, A., Rowe, B. H., & Hagel, B. E. (2013). Assessing inter-rater agreement of environmental audit data in a matched case-control study on bicycling injuries. Injury prevention, 19(5), 336-341.http://hdl.handle.net/1880/50975This article has been accepted for publication in BMJ Injury Prevention following peer review. The definitive copyedited, typeset version is available online at: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/336.full.pdf+html. Post print version of article deposited according to BMJ license agreement http://journals.bmj.com/site/authors/Wholly_owned_licence_March_2014.pdf August 20, 2015.BACKGROUND: Environmental audit tools must be reliable in order to accurately estimate the association between built environmental characteristics and bicycling injury risk. OBJECTIVE: To examine the inter-rater agreement of a built environment audit tool within a case-control study on the environmental determinants of bicycling injuries. METHODS: Auditor pairs visited locations where bicycling injuries occurred and independently recorded location characteristics using the Systematic Pedestrian and Cyclist Environmental Scan (SPACES). Two case groups were defined: (1) where a bicyclist was struck by a motor-vehicle (MV) and (2) where the bicyclist's injuries required hospitalisation. The two corresponding control groups were (1) where non-MV bicycle-related injuries occurred and (2) where minor bicycle-related injuries occurred. Inter-rater reliability of each item on the tool was assessed using observed agreement and κ with 95% CI. RESULTS: Ninety-seven locations were audited. Inter-observer agreement was generally high (≥95%); most items had a 1-2% difference in responses. Items with ≥5% differences between raters included path condition, slope and obstructions. For land use, path and roadway characteristics, κ ranged from 0.3 for presence of offices and cleanliness to 0.9 for schools and number of lanes; overall, 78% of items had at least substantial agreement (κ≥0.61). For bicyclists struck by a MV the proportion of items with substantial agreement was 60%, compared with 73% for non-MV related injuries. For hospitalisations and minor bicycle-related injuries, 76% of items had substantial agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement was substantial for most, but not all SPACES items. The SPACES provides reliable quantitative descriptions of built environmental characteristics at bicycling injury locations.enAccidents, Traffic/statistics & numerical dataAdolescentAdultBicycling/injuriesCase-Control studiesChildEnvironment Design/statistics & numerical dataObserver variationPublic Health/methodsjournal article10.1136/injuryprev-2012-04050010.11575/PRISM/33738