Enhancing Urban Accessibility: Reliability and Validity Assessment of the Stakeholders’ Walkability/Wheelability Audit in Neighbourhoods Tool

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the measurement properties of the Stakeholders' Walkability/Wheelability Audit in Neighbourhoods (SWAN) tool. In my opinion, the submitted version requires further revisions, especially with regard to the structuring and presentation of the work.

Section 1 (Introduction)

I think it is important to clarify and justify the reasons that led to the choice to apply the SWAN tool compared to the other audit tools. Why the application also considers other tools (HACE, Walk score), is not clear.

For completeness and to help the narrative, an overview of the structure of the paper should be included at the end of this section.

 

Section 2 (Materials and Methods)

I think this section needs to be reorganized in a clear way. For example, the authors might consider the possibility of having two sub-sections: one about theoretical background (1) and one about methodology/ research design (2).

In this sense, part (1) should explain the audit tools, currently available and used, and in which fields they are applied. Next, a justification for the choice of the SWAN tool for this research and application should be reported.

Part (2) should clearly describe the steps of the research, possibly with the help of a scheme/diagram in which the transition and union from one tool/phase of research to another is understandable.

In addition, it is important that all acronyms are made explicit the first time they are mentioned in the text (e.g., GIS, HACE, IRR). I think it is more appropriate not to insert the acronym in the title but in the text of the paragraph.

Section 2.1 refers to "two research assistants accompanied the participant." How did these two assistants support the participants?

Consequently, the Results section must also be reorganized.

 

Section 4 and 5 (Discussions and Conclusions)

The conclusions section contains information on limitations and future research developments that are most appropriate for the conclusions section. Both should therefore be rethought and deepened. The authors note that there are several typos, so the paper requires careful proofreading.

Author Response

The paper investigates the measurement properties of the Stakeholders' Walkability/Wheelability Audit in Neighbourhoods (SWAN) tool. In my opinion, the submitted version requires further revisions, especially with regard to the structuring and presentation of the work.

 

Section 1 (Introduction)

• I think it is important to clarify and justify the reasons that led to the choice to apply the SWAN tool compared to the other audit tools. Why the application also considers other tools (HACE, Walk score), is not clear.

Response: The SWAN Tool is specifically designed to reflect the experiences of older adults and individuals with disabilities. It was developed using a community-based research approach, where people with lived experiences offer feedback on the tool's design and participate as co-researchers in data collection. These key elements distinguish SWAN from other tools. Established tools like HACE, WalkScore, and SI measure similar concepts to SWAN, and their measurement properties have been documented and proven reliable. These tools were chosen for comparison to SWAN, ensuring a thorough and reliable analysis. Line 113-116, 80-90

• For completeness and to help the narrative, an overview of the structure of the paper should be included at the end of this section.

Response: Added. Line 98- 105

Section 2 (Materials and Methods)

• I think this section needs to be reorganized in a clear way. For example, the authors might consider the possibility of having two sub-sections: one about theoretical background (1) and one about methodology/ research design (2).

Response: Theoretical backgrounds are mentioned in the introduction section. Line 42-56 For a better follow subheadings in sections 2 is rewritten and additional explanations is added.

• In this sense, part (1) should explain the audit tools, currently available and used, and in which fields they are applied. Next, a justification for the choice of the SWAN tool for this research and application should be reported.

Response: The SWAN tool is an adaptation of the SWEAT-R tool that captures the perspective of older adults on neighbourhood accessibility. Moreover, the develop-ment of the SWAN tool included a comprehensive literature review and incorporated aspects of other user-led tools. As mentioned in the introduction SWAN tool is specially designed to capture older adults and people living with disabilities perspective that aligns with the purpose of this study.

• Part (2) should clearly describe the steps of the research, possibly with the help of a scheme/diagram in which the transition and union from one tool/phase of research to another is understandable.

Response: Subheadings are added.

• In addition, it is important that all acronyms are made explicit the first time they are mentioned in the text (e.g., GIS, HACE, IRR). I think it is more appropriate not to insert the acronym in the title but in the text of the paragraph.

Response: addressed in text.

• Section 2.1 refers to "two research assistants accompanied the participant." How did these two assistants support the participants?

Response: details added. Line 153-160

• Consequently, the Results section must also be reorganized.

Response: The Results section is organized to clearly address the objectives of the study, presenting findings on inter-rater reliability (IRR), construct validity, and internal consistency.

Section 4 and 5 (Discussions and Conclusions)

• The conclusions section contains information on limitations and future research developments that are most appropriate for the conclusions section. Both should therefore be rethought and deepened. The authors note that there are several typos, so the paper requires careful proofreading.

Response: These sections are rewritten.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this paper. There are a few content issues as well as some typos that should be addressed before publication.

Content:

1. Lines 79-86. Please better describe what is different for the SWAN from the other tools which evaluate microscale qualities. Currently, you just state there are other tools and then describe the SWAN.

2. Line 119. Since you are recruiting people with cognitive issues and you ask if they can provide informed consent, were there any additional considerations to make sure that they understood what they were consenting to?

3. Lines 121-133. It appears you went through a process to identify specific areas to evaluate, and those areas had known issues with safety and other features. It is best to evaluate IRR, construct validity, and internal consistency across a wide range of scores. I think this should be added to the limitations in the discussion (lines 321-326). That is: the areas evaluated in this study do not necessarily represent the range of areas that this tool could be used to evaluate.

4. Table 1: How were people placed into a category when there is overlap? For example, the cognitive impairment group also had people who were 60+, but they weren't counted in the 60+ group. It would be best to put people in each category that they fit into and note some people were in more than one category.

5. Results: Please provide tables for the 3 tests (IRR, construct validity, and internal consistency) so that it is easier to see the domain and subdomain scores rather than just in the paragraphs.

6. Section on SWAN starting on line 143: It would be good to provide a couple of sample questions from the tool.

Typos:

1. Line 22: "These findings provide preliminary evidence the SWAN tool's potential..." I believe should be: "These findings provide preliminary evidence OF the SWAN tool's potential..."

2. Line 44: extra space between instance and individuals.

3. Line 56: two periods.

4. Line 106: "through email or phone to eligibility criteria" should be "through email or phone to ASSESS eligibility criteria".

5. Line 128: Should that be 5 rather than 6 municipalities?

6. Line 144: "The SWAN is a micro-scale user-led audit tool allows users" should be "The SWAN is a micro-scale user-led audit tool THAT allows users"

7. Line 203: "Microsoft Excel software will be used to enter" make sure the entire paper is past tense as in it should be "Microsoft Excel software WAS used to enter"

8. Line 216: "The paper gauged construct validity by exploring correlations SWAN tool's domains..." should be "The STUDY gauged construct validity by exploring correlations BETWEEN SWAN tool's domains..."

9. Line 248-249: "As an alternative, sensitivity analyses may be conducted to assess the impact of missing data on the reliability estimates." I would remove this sentence. You don't need to state alternatives to what you chose to do.

10. Line 306: "thecorrelations between" missing space.

11. Line 310: "accessibilityWhile the" missing period and space.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting this paper. There are a few content issues as well as some typos that should be addressed before publication.

Content:

• Lines 79-86. Please better describe what is different for the SWAN from the other tools which evaluate microscale qualities. Currently, you just state there are other tools and then describe the SWAN.

Response: The SWAN Tool is specifically designed to reflect the experiences of older adults and individuals with disabilities. It was developed using a community-based research approach, where people with lived experiences offer feedback on the tool's design and participate as co-researchers in data collection. These key elements distinguish SWAN from other tools. Line 113-116, 80-90

• Line 119. Since you are recruiting people with cognitive issues and you ask if they can provide informed consent, were there any additional considerations to make sure that they understood what they were consenting to?

Response: This study was done with people living with early stages of dementia, who were able to provide consent. The consent form was designed in plain language and further explanations were provided by research assistant.

• Lines 121-133. It appears you went through a process to identify specific areas to evaluate, and those areas had known issues with safety and other features. It is best to evaluate IRR, construct validity, and internal consistency across a wide range of scores. I think this should be added to the limitations in the discussion (lines 321-326). That is: the areas evaluated in this study do not necessarily represent the range of areas that this tool could be used to evaluate.

Response: The SWAN tool consists of 7 subdomains and 5 main domains. Inter-rater reliability IRR, construct validity, and internal consistency are assessed across all subdomains. For construct validity, the study uses HACE, SI, and WalkScore to ensure that all subdomains are compared to tools that capture similar domains. Regarding IRR, comparisons are made between individuals with lived experience and secondary RA across all domains. Internal consistency is calculated for both the main domains and subdomains.

• Results: Please provide tables for the 3 tests (IRR, construct validity, and internal consistency) so that it is easier to see the domain and subdomain scores rather than just in the paragraphs.

Response: Tables are added.

• Section on SWAN starting on line 143: It would be good to provide a couple of sample questions from the tool.

Response: added in line 185-187

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been improved based on revisions. The authors note that there are some minor errors :

• line 171. The text is merged with the title and all in italics
• line 445. Authors' contributions follow the text of the conclusions
• In the titles of sections and subsections it is better to avoid acronyms, but to indicate them with their full form.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the feedback.

Comment: line 171. The text is merged with the title and all in italics.

Response: Text is edited, and now matches the paragraph style.

Comment: line 445. Authors' contributions follow the text of the conclusions.

Response: Authors' contributions is now separated from conclusion section.

Comment: In the titles of sections and subsections it is better to avoid acronyms, but to indicate them with their full form.

Response: Full name is provided.