↓ Skip to main content

Categorisation of built environment characteristics: the trouble with tertiles

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Categorisation of built environment characteristics: the trouble with tertiles
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0181-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen E Lamb, Simon R White

Abstract

In the analysis of the effect of built environment features on health, it is common for researchers to categorise built environment exposure variables based on arbitrary percentile cut-points, such as median or tertile splits. This arbitrary categorisation leads to a loss of information and a lack of comparability between studies since the choice of cut-point is based on the sample distribution. In this paper, we highlight the various drawbacks of adopting percentile categorisation of exposure variables. Using data from the SocioEconomic Status and Activity in Women (SESAW) study from Melbourne, Australia, we highlight alternative approaches which may be used instead of percentile categorisation in order to assess built environment effects on health. We discuss these approaches using an example which examines the association between the number of accessible supermarkets and body mass index. We show that alternative approaches to percentile categorisation, such as transformations of the exposure variable or factorial polynomials, can be implemented easily using standard statistical software packages. These procedures utilise all of the available information available in the data, avoiding a loss of power as experienced when categorisation is adopted.We argue that researchers should retain all available information by using the continuous exposure, adopting transformations where necessary.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Sports and Recreations 6 9%
Engineering 4 6%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,932,416
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,043
of 1,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,377
of 385,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#35
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 385,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.