The role of self-efficacy in the wheelchair skills-physical activity relationship among manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether self-efficacy can account for the relationship between wheelchair skills and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Method: Fifty-four manual wheelchair users with SCI participated in this cross-sectional study. Participants completed a wheelchair skills test, and self-report measures of wheelchair-use self-efficacy, LTPA barrier self-efficacy, and LTPA. It was hypothesized that a positive wheelchair skills-LTPA relationship would be mediated by wheelchair-use self-efficacy and LTPA barrier self-efficacy. Results: Using linear regression models, a positive association between wheelchair skills and LTPA was established (β = 0.27, p < 0.05). LTPA barrier self-efficacy was a significant partial mediator, explaining 47.7% of the variance of the total relationship between skills and LTPA. Wheelchair-use self-efficacy was not a significant mediator of the wheelchair skills-LTPA relationship. Conclusions: Wheelchair skills play a modest role in LTPA participation and may facilitate LTPA, if skills help people feel more self-efficacious in their abilities to overcome LTPA barriers. The results have implications for understanding and improving LTPA participation. Improvements in wheelchair skills may facilitate LTPA, if people are taught the skills needed to increase their self-efficacy to overcome barriers to LTPA participation.Implications for RehabilitationMany Canadians with spinal cord injury (SCI) do not participate in leisure-time physical activities (LTPAs).Lack of LTPA participation is associated with increased health risks in people with SCI, who are already at higher risk for health problems when compared to the able-bodied population.The belief in one’s ability to overcome barriers (barrier self-efficacy) to LTPA plays a significant role in LTPA participation for people with SCI.People with SCI may benefit from a formal wheelchair skills training program to improve their barrier self-efficacy which can lead to more participation in LTPA and decreased health risks.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".