Perceived success/failure and attributions associated with self-regulatory efficacy to meet physical activity recommendations for women with arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between attributional dimensions women assign to the cause of their perceived success or failure at meeting the recommended physical activity dose and self-regulatory efficacy for future physical activity was examined among women with arthritis. Women (N = 117) aged 18-84 years, with self-reported medically-diagnosed arthritis, completed on-line questions in the fall of 2013 assessing endurance physical activity, perceived outcome for meeting the recommended levels of endurance activity, attributions for one's success or failure in meeting the recommendations, and self-regulatory efficacy to schedule/plan endurance activity over the next month. The main theoretically-driven finding revealed that the interaction of the stability dimension with perceived success/failure was significantly related to self-regulatory efficacy for scheduling and planning future physical activity (β = 0.35, p = .002). Outcomes attributed to more versus less stable factors accentuated differences in self-regulatory efficacy beliefs following perceived success and failure at being active. It appears that attributional dimensions were associated with self-regulatory efficacy in women with arthritis. This suggests that rather than objectively observed past mastery experience, women's subjective perceptions and explanations of their past experiences were related to efficacy beliefs, especially following a failure experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".