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
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.
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 | 0.161 | 0.324 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".