Attributions and self-efficacy for physical activity in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-efficacy is an important predictor of health-related physical activity in multiple sclerosis (MS). While past experiences are believed to influence efficacy beliefs, the explanations individuals provide for these experiences also may be critical. Our objective was to test the hypothesis that perceived success or failure to accumulate 150 min of physical activity in the previous week would moderate the relationship between the attributional dimension of stability and self-efficacy to exercise in the future. Forty-two adults with MS participated in this cross-sectional descriptive study. Participants completed questions assessing physical activity, perceived outcome for meeting the recommended level of endurance activity, attributions for the outcome, and exercise self-efficacy. Results from hierarchical multiple regression revealed a significant main effect for perceived outcome predicting self-efficacy that was qualified by a significant interaction. The final model, which included perceived outcome, stability, and the interaction term, predicted 37% of the variance in exercise self-efficacy, F (3, 38) = 7.27, p = .001. Our findings suggest that the best prediction of self-efficacy in the MS population may include the interaction of specific attributional dimensions with success/failure at meeting the recommended physical activity dose. Attributions may be another target for interventions aimed at increasing the physical activity in MS.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".