Temporal Relationships of Self-Efficacy and Social Support as Predictors of Adherence in a 6-Month Strength-Training Program for Older Women
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
The present study investigated how self-efficacy and social support predicted adherence to a strength training program for elderly women over two time periods in the initial 6 mo. of the program. Participants were 30 elderly women volunteers aged 75 to 80 who completed measures of barrier self-efficacy and general social support at baseline and 3 mo. later. Social support from the program was also measured at 3 mo. Adherence to the program was measured by attendance. Hierarchical regression equations were utilized to identify the contributions of self-efficacy and social support for adherence at 0 to 3 mo. and 4 to 6 mo. For prediction of the first 3 mo. of adherence, both self-efficacy and social support contributed significant unique variance towards the total explained variance of 36%. For the 4- to 6-mo. period, self-efficacy explained significant (12%) variance in adherence even when controlling for the previous 3-mo. adherence. Inclusion of general social support and social support from the program, however, did not account for significant variance. Researchers must continue to examine self-efficacy and social support in exercise adherence within various time periods among older adults to develop effective intervention strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it