MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021515832 · doi:10.1177/1090198112455642

A Test of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Physical Activity in an Overweight/Obese Population Sample of Adolescents From Alberta, Canada

2012· article· en· W2021515832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightTheory of planned behaviorTest (biology)Sample (material)Physical activityObesityPopulationPsychologyGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthMedicinePhysical therapySociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the utility of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) for explaining physical activity (PA) intention and behavior among a large population sample of overweight and obese adolescents (Alberta, Canada), using a web-based survey. Secondary objectives were to examine the mediating effects of the TPB constructs and moderating effects of weight status. METHODS: A subsample of 427 overweight and 133 obese participants (n = 560), completed a self-administered web-based questionnaire on health and PA behaviors, including assessment of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control (PBC), and intention to participate in regular PA. Structural equation models were examined using AMOS 17.0. RESULTS: Overall, 62% of the variance in intention was accounted for by attitude, subjective norm, and PBC; whereas 44% of the variance in PA behavior was explained by PBC and intention. When examining the TPB separately in overweight and obese subsamples, 66% and 56% of the variance for PA intention was explained for overweight and obese subsamples, respectively; and 38% and 56% of the variance in PA behavior were accounted for in the overweight and obese subsamples. Overall, attitude was the strongest predictor of PA intention, whereas PBC was the strongest predictor for PA behavior. Intention was not predictive of PA behavior. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide partial support for the utility of TPB in explaining PA behavior in a sample of overweight and obese adolescents. In particular, strong associations regarding attitude and PBC were evident across each subsample. These findings have implications for tailoring PA programs in this population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it