Effects of different measurement scales on the variability and predictive validity of the “two-component” model of the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited measurement variability may reduce the ability of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict desirable health behaviors. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of five different measurement scales on the variability and predictive validity of the TPB in the exercise domain. A secondary purpose was to test the utility of the “two-component” TPB model (i.e., affective and instrumental attitudes, injunctive and descriptive norms, and perceived control and self-efficacy). We randomly assigned 422 undergraduate students to complete one of the five measurement scales. Results showed that the four experimental scales significantly increased the variability in most TPB measures but did not improve the model's predictive validity. Moreover, support was found for the “two-component” model for attitude and subjective norm but not for perceived behavioral control. It was concluded that the standard 7-point scale is still the optimal measurement scale for the TPB and that the “two-component” model is superior to the traditional model in the exercise domain.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it