Validity of the Stages of Change in Steps instrument (SoC-Step) for achieving the physical activity goal of 10,000 steps per day
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) offers numerous benefits to health and well-being, but most adults are not sufficiently physically active to afford such benefits. The 10,000 steps campaign has been a popular and effective approach to promote PA. The Transtheoretical Model posits that individuals have varying levels of readiness for health behavior change, known as Stages of Change (Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance). Few validated assessment instruments are available for determining Stages of Change in relation to the PA goal of 10,000 steps per day. The purpose of this study was to assess the criterion-related validity of the SoC-Step, a brief 10,000 steps per day Stages of Change instrument. METHODS: Participants were 504 Australian adults (176 males, 328 females, mean age = 50.8 ± 13.0 years) from the baseline sample of the Walk 2.0 randomized controlled trial. Measures included 7-day accelerometry (Actigraph GT3X), height, weight, and self-reported intention, self-efficacy, and SoC-Step: Stages of Change relative to achieving 10,000 steps per day. Kruskal-Wallis H tests with pairwise comparisons were used to determine whether participants differed by stage, according to steps per day, general health, body mass index, intention, and self-efficacy to achieve 10,000 steps per day. Binary logistic regression was used to test the hypothesis that participants in Maintenance or Action stages would have greater likelihood of meeting the 10,000 steps goal, in comparison to participants in the other three stages. RESULTS: Consistent with study hypotheses, participants in Precontemplation had significantly lower intention scores than those in Contemplation (p = 0.003) or Preparation (p < 0.001). Participants in Action or Maintenance stages were more likely to achieve ≥10,000 steps per day (OR = 3.11; 95 % CI = 1.66,5.83) compared to those in Precontemplation, Contemplation, or Preparation. Intention (p < 0.001) and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) to achieve 10,000 steps daily differed by stage, and participants in the Maintenance stage had higher general health status and lower body mass index than those in Precontemplation, Contemplation and Preparation stages (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This brief SoC-Step instrument appears to have good criterion-related validity for determining Stages of Change related to the public health goal of 10,000 steps per day. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12611000157976 World Health Organization Universal Trial Number: U111-1119-1755.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".