Effects of team building on exercise adherence and group task satisfaction in a youth activity setting.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results from previous research have revealed a positive relationship between team building (TB) and several measures of adherence in adult exercise settings (Carron & Spink, 1993; Spink & Carron, 1993). However, research has yet to examine the efficacy of using a TB intervention to impact the exercise adherence of youth. The main purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a TB intervention on specific adherence behaviors of youth in an exercise club setting. A second purpose was to investigate the effects of TB on participant’s satisfaction with the group’s functioning (group task satisfaction). Participants were 122 youth (13–17 years) participating in 10 rural, school-based exercise clubs. Clubs were randomized into five TB (n65) and five control groups (n57). Results revealed that following the introduction of the intervention, the two groups differed significantly on the adherence measure of session attendance but not on dropout behavior. Further, significant differences were found between the groups in group task satisfaction. The study findings extend previous TB research to a youth population and support TB as an effective group-based intervention to improve session attendance and group task satisfaction in an exercise setting in this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".