Predictors of Response to an Intervention Modifying Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in Overweight/Obese Children: Attitudes vs. Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare liking and other attitudes toward physical activity (PA) and television (TV) viewing versus PA behavior and time viewing TV at baseline as predictors of response to lifestyle intervention in 30, 8 to 12 year old overweight/obese children. METHOD: Secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial designed to increase PA and reduce sedentary behavior. PA was measured by accelerometers worn by participants every day for 8 weeks. TV viewing at baseline and during intervention was assessed by self-report. RESULTS: Multiple regression analyses showed that base rates of PA and TV viewing significantly predicted changes in PA (Beta = .39, P < .05) and TV viewing (Beta = .37, P < .05) during the intervention, even after statistically controlling for child age, gender, body mass index, as well as baseline attitudes and liking of PA and TV viewing. However, self-reported liking of TV viewing and PA, perceived adequacy, and predilection were not predictive of response to intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline measure of PA and TV viewing behaviors may be better predictors of response to lifestyle intervention than measure of liking and other attitudinal variables of PA. The theoretical and clinical implications of these findings are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".