How we score

Reviews are weighted by what research shows actually affects tenant health. Conditions with documented health impacts count more than cosmetic complaints. The methodology is adapted from three validated public health instruments and the weights come from peer-reviewed evidence.

Foundation

Where the items come from

Our 27-item assessment is adapted from three validated public health instruments:

Observational Housing Quality Scale (OHQS)

Developed by Krieger and Higgins to systematically assess housing conditions linked to health outcomes. We use it for the unit-level items: structural problems, pest infestation, moisture issues.

Krieger & Higgins (2002), American Journal of Public Health

Physical Housing Quality Scale (PHQS)

A comprehensive instrument for building-level housing quality, validated across diverse housing types and urban contexts. We use it for the building-level items: common areas, security, exterior, noise, mail, trash.

Jacobs et al. (2009), Environmental Health Perspectives

WHO LARES Study

A pan-European housing-and-health study, validated for evaluating landlord and management factors that affect tenant wellbeing. We use it for the landlord-level items: maintenance response, communication, professionalism, and rental practices.

Bonnefoy et al. (2003), American Journal of Public Health

Each of our 27 items traces to one of these three instruments.

The math

How scores are calculated

Each review collects ratings across 27 individual items organized into three domains:

Unit quality

10 items covering structural integrity, systems, and livability

Based on OHQS interior assessment domains

Building

9 items covering common areas, security, and amenities

Based on PHQS building-level indicators

Landlord

8 items covering responsiveness, communication, and practices

Based on WHO LARES management factors

We don't treat every item equally. Items with documented health impacts carry more weight in the score.

Why some items count more

Health and safety weighting

Some housing conditions have stronger associations with health outcomes than others. The weights below come from epidemiological research:

1.5x Weight

Pest control

Pest infestations (cockroaches, rodents, bed bugs) are strongly associated with asthma, allergic reactions, and disease transmission. Cockroach allergen is a major trigger for childhood asthma in urban environments.

Reference: Krieger & Higgins (2002), American Journal of Public Health
1.5x Weight

Mold and moisture

Visible mold and dampness are associated with a 1.5-3.5x increased odds ratio for respiratory symptoms, including asthma, wheeze, and upper respiratory infections. This is one of the most well-documented housing-health relationships.

Reference: Jacobs et al. (2009), Environmental Health Perspectives
1.3x Weight

Structural integrity

Structural deficiencies including damaged floors, walls, and ceilings pose direct injury risks from falls, collapses, and accidents. Poor structural condition also often indicates deferred maintenance affecting other systems.

Reference: Bonnefoy et al. (2003), WHO LARES Study
1.3x Weight

Climate control (heating and cooling)

Inadequate heating is associated with cardiovascular stress, hypothermia risk, and respiratory illness. This is particularly important in Boston's climate where winter temperatures regularly drop below freezing.

Reference: Bonnefoy et al. (2003), WHO LARES Study
1.2x Weight

Plumbing

Plumbing issues create pathways to mold growth through water damage and leaks. Persistent moisture from plumbing problems is a primary cause of indoor mold, creating indirect health effects.

Reference: Jacobs et al. (2009), Environmental Health Perspectives
1.2x Weight

Security

Building security features (working locks, secure entry, lighting) directly impact personal safety and are associated with reduced risk of break-ins, assault, and psychological stress from fear of crime.

Reference: Bonnefoy et al. (2003), WHO LARES Study

What we ask

The 27 rating items

Each item traces to one of the three instruments above. Items marked with * carry health and safety weighting. The review form also includes 5 questions that aren't scored: recommendation, tenure, move-out year, voucher acceptance, and street-lighting context.

Unit quality (10 items)

  • * Structural integrity
  • * Plumbing systems
  • Electrical systems
  • * Climate control (heat and AC)
  • Ventilation
  • * Pest control
  • * Mold and moisture
  • Appliances
  • Layout and space
  • Accuracy to listing

Source: OHQS

Building (9 items)

  • Common areas
  • * Security features
  • Exterior condition
  • Neighbor noise
  • External noise
  • Mail and package handling
  • Laundry facilities
  • Parking
  • Trash and recycling

Source: PHQS

Landlord (8 items)

  • Maintenance response
  • Communication
  • Professionalism
  • Lease clarity
  • Privacy respect
  • Deposit handling
  • Rent practices
  • Non-retaliation

Source: WHO LARES

Recent reviews count more

Recency weighting

Aggregate scores apply recency weighting because buildings and management change over time. Newer reviews count more than older ones, but historical reviews still count.

Review Age Weight Applied
0-2 years100%
3 years95%
4 years90%
5+ years85% (floor)
Reference: Hu, Pavlou, and Zhang (2017), MIS Quarterly.

Reading the numbers

Interpreting scores

4.0-5.0
Good
Few or no issues
3.0-3.9
Mixed
Some minor issues
2.0-2.9
Concerning
Notable problems
1.0-1.9
Poor
Serious concerns

Sources

References

Survey instrument sources

  1. Krieger, J., & Higgins, D. L. (2002). Housing and health: Time again for public health action. American Journal of Public Health, 92(5), 758-768. Source for OHQS (Observational Housing Quality Scale) - Unit condition items doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.5.758
  2. Jacobs, D. E., Wilson, J., Dixon, S. L., Smith, J., & Evens, A. (2009). The relationship of housing and population health: A 30-year retrospective analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(4), 597-604. Source for PHQS (Physical Housing Quality Scale) - Building-level items doi:10.1289/ehp.0800086
  3. Bonnefoy, X., Braubach, M., Moissonnier, B., Monolbaev, K., & Röbbel, N. (2003). Housing and health in Europe: Preliminary results of a pan-European study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1559-1563. WHO LARES Study - Landlord/management assessment items doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.9.1559

Health and safety weighting evidence

  1. Krieger, J. (2010). Home is where the triggers are: Increasing asthma control by improving the home environment. Pediatric Allergy, Immunology, and Pulmonology, 23(2), 139-145. Evidence for pest/allergen weighting doi:10.1089/ped.2010.0022
  2. Fisk, W. J., Lei-Gomez, Q., & Mendell, M. J. (2007). Meta-analyses of the associations of respiratory health effects with dampness and mold in homes. Indoor Air, 17(4), 284-296. Evidence for mold/moisture weighting (OR 1.5-3.5) doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00475.x
  3. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2018). WHO Housing and Health Guidelines. World Health Organization. Comprehensive evidence review for housing-health relationships WHO Publication

Methodology references

  1. Hu, N., Pavlou, P. A., & Zhang, J. (2017). On self-selection biases in online product reviews. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), 449-471. Evidence for recency weighting in review aggregation doi:10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.06

Our commitment to transparency

Tenants are the experts on their own housing. The methodology is public so you can see exactly how scores are calculated. Every review displays both raw scores and weighted domain scores.

Items marked with * indicate health and safety weighted categories.

Have questions about our methodology?

Contact us