Evaluating the properties of a stage-specific self-efficacy scale for physical activity using classical test theory, confirmatory factor analysis and item response modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a stage-specific self-efficacy scale for physical activity with classical test theory (CTT), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item response modeling (IRM). Women who enrolled in the Women On The Move study completed a 20-item stage-specific self-efficacy scale developed for this study [n=226, 51.1% African-American and 48.9% Hispanic women, mean age = 49.2 (+/-7.0) years, mean body mass index = 29.7 (+/-6.4)]. Three analyses were conducted: (i) a CTT item analysis, (ii) a CFA to validate the factor structure and (iii) an IRM analysis. The CTT item analysis and the CFA results showed that the scale had high internal consistency (ranging from 0.76 to 0.93) and a strong factor structure. Results also showed that the scale could be improved by modifying or eliminating some of the existing items without significantly altering the content of the scale. The IRM results also showed that the scale had few items that targeted high self-efficacy and the stage-specific assumption underlying the scale was rejected. In addition, the IRM analyses found that the five-point response format functioned more like a four-point response format. Overall, employing multiple methods to assess the psychometric properties of the stage-specific self-efficacy scale demonstrated the complimentary nature of these methods and it highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of this scale.
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 | 0.028 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".