Fidelity to Theory in PA Intervention Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using theory-based interventions to promote regular physical activity (PA) has increased substantially over the past decade. The purpose of this article is to provide a review and summary of PA intervention research specific to fidelity to intervention theory, providing an overview of the concept of fidelity to intervention theory, defining the evaluative components of fidelity: (a) conceptualization of the problem, (b) operationalization of the theory, (c) specification of mediating processes, and (d) specification of outcome variables. Using journal scans and computerized literature database searches, the authors identified 470 PA activity intervention studies that incorporated a theoretical perspective. A validity framework explicated by was used to summarize intervention research in light of fidelity to intervention theory. In all, 15 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the review. Theoretical models for health behavior change, including social cognitive theory (SCT), cognitive behavioral theory (CBT), the transtheoretical model (TTM, the TTM combined with SCT), the reversal theory (theory of psychological reversals), and the disconnected values theory, were used as a basis for intervention design and evaluation.
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 | 0.147 | 0.394 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".