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