Evaluation of Social Cognitive Scaling Response Options in the Physical Activity Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability, variability, and predictive validity of two common scaling response formats (semantic differential, Likert-type) and two numbers of response options (5-point, 7-point) in the physical activity domain. Constructs of the theory of planned behavior were chosen in this analysis based on its high frequency of application in exercise and physical activity. The participants were 412 undergraduate students who completed measures of the theory of planned behavior and self-reported physical activity two weeks later. One of four questionnaires, each containing a scaling response format, were distributed randomly and formed four groups of approximately n = 100 for comparisons (5-point Likert, 5-point semantic differential, 7-point Likert, 7-point semantic differential). Results showed that the 7-point options had greater variability than the 5-point options and that the 7-point Likert scale had the highest overall reliability. These differences, however, did not translate into predictive validity of behavior. The findings support the use of all of these types of scales with physical activity research because of their relatively equivalent outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".