Evidence for a Multidimensional Self-Efficacy for Exercise Scale
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
This series of three studies considers the multidimensionality of exercise self-efficacy by examining the psychometric characteristics of an instrument designed to assess three behavioral subdomains: task, scheduling, and coping. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis revealed the expected factor structure in a sample of 395 students. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed these results in a second sample of 282 students. In Study 2, the generalizability of the factor structure was confirmed with CFA in a randomly selected sample of 470 community adults, and discriminant validity was supported by theoretically consistent distinctions among exercisers and nonexercisers. In Study 3, change in self-efficacy in conjunction with adoption of novel exercise was examined in a sample of 58 women over 12 weeks. Observed changes in the three self-efficacy domains appeared to be relatively independent. Together, the three studies support a multidimensional conceptualization of exercise self-efficacy that can be assessed and appears to be sensitive to change in exercise behavior.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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