Skip to main content

Table 5 Differences in socio-demographic, functional, psychosocial, walking and environmental variables between the subgroups

From: Street characteristics preferred for transportation walking among older adults: a choice-based conjoint analysis with manipulated photographs

  Subgroup 1 (n = 624) Subgroup 2 (n = 350) Subgroup 3 (n = 83) Subgroup 4 (n = 74) Chi2 (p-value) Wilks’ lambda F (p-value)d
Gender (% women) 51.9 42.0 37.3 47.3 12.6 (0.01)  
Area of residence (% rural) 57.9 60.6 48.2 74.3 11.9 (0.01)  
Residential situation (% in service flat) 11.1 11.1 13.3 23.0 9.3 (0.03)  
Physical functioning (/100, M ± SD)1 83.5 ± 20.4a,b 85.2 ± 20.2a 81.8 ± 24.4a,b 75.5 ± 28.7b   4.3 (0.01)
Use of walking aid (%) 11.4 11.1 14.5 28.4 18.5 (<0.001)  
Fear of falling (/4, M ± SD)2 1.3 ± 0.5a,b 1.3 ± 0.4a 1.4 ± 0.5a,b 1.6 ± 0.7b   5.9 (0.001)
Perceived barriers (/5, M ± SD) 2.6 ± 1.3a 2.4 ± 1.2b,c 2.2 ± 1.2a,c 2.6 ± 1.3a,b,c   3.9 (0.01)
Traffic volume in own street (%)       
Heavy traffic 24.4 29.7 19.3 24.3 12.2 (0.06)  
Medium traffic 40.7 32.3 33.7 41.9   
Light traffic 34.9 38.0 47.0 33.8   
Traffic calming in own street (% with traffic calming) 27.6 35.7 31.3 35.1 7.7 (0.05)  
Presence of bench in own street (% with bench) 16.7 16.6 15.7 31.1 10.2 (0.02)  
  1. a,b,cMeans with different superscripts differ significantly from each other
  2. dThe multivariate Wilks’ lambda F = 1.5 with p = 0.02