Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire
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 purpose of this study was to examine select psychometric properties of the Behavioral \nRegulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ; Mullen, Markland, & \nIngledew, 1997). To accomplish this aim, data were gathered in 2 phases to evaluate \nthe BREQ’s factorial composition and structure and the relation between the BREQ, \nneed satisfaction, exercise behavior, and relevant motivational constructs. Participants \ncompleted measures assessing psychological need satisfaction, optimism, perceived \nbehavioral control, exercise behavior, and the BREQ. Phase 1 results supported \nthe original 4-factor measurement model and a simplex model of structural \nrelations between latentBREQconstructs suggested within self-determination theory \n(Deci & Ryan, 1985), and results supported the positive relations between more \nself-determined motives and greater psychological need satisfaction and frequent exercise \nbehavior. Phase 2 results provided further construct validity evidence for the \nBREQ by linking subscale scores with greater perceived behavioral control in a manner \nconsistent with theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Collectively, these results further \nsupport the construct validity of the BREQ and lend credence to the notion of measuring \nexercise motivation from a multidimensional perspective using self-determination \ntheory as a guiding framework 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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