A new betweenness centrality measure based on an algorithm for ranking the nodes of a network

We propose and discuss a new centrality index for urban street patterns represented as networks in geographical space. This centrality measure, that we call ranking-betweenness centrality, combines the idea behind the random-walk betweenness centrality measure and the idea of ranking the nodes of a network produced by an adapted PageRank algorithm. We initially use a PageRank algorithm in which we are able to transform some information of the network that we want to analyze into numerical values. Numerical values summarizing the information are associated to each of the nodes by means of a data matrix. After running the adapted PageRank algorithm, a ranking of the nodes is obtained, according to their importance in the network. This classification is the starting point for applying an algorithm based on the random-walk betweenness centrality. A detailed example of a real urban street network is discussed in order to understand the process to evaluate the ranking-betweenness centrality proposed, performing some comparisons with other classical centrality measures.

What do older people understand by mobility-related difficulties?

Despite the centrality of the difficulty concept in the study of disability, there has been little research on its significance from the point of view of people with functional limitations. The main objective of this study was to describe what older people understand when asked about difficulty in undertaking mobility activities. As a secondary objective, we considered whether there are any differences depending on the type of activities, according to the International Classification of Functioning (ICF) mobility domains. Methods: Seventeen community-dwelling men and women aged 70 years old or over were interviewed by means of a questionnaire containing 55 items covering the ICF mobility domains. The participants responded to the items while thinking aloud, saying what led them to give a specific answer about their level of difficulty. Inductive content analysis was conducted and categories, subthemes and themes were identified. Results: Causes of difficulty (pathologies, impairments, symptoms) and accommodations (task modifications and use of aids) were the two themes identified; and their importance (and that of the subthemes included) varied across the types of activity. All the participants said that they had no difficulty in at least one task, despite mentioning changes in the way they performed them. Conclusions: Older people's opinions were consistent with theoretical models of disability and with the standard practice of measuring functional limitations by asking about the degree of difficulty; however, the design of these measures needs to be improved in order to detect perceptions of no difficulty in the presence of task modification.