Determinants of clients’ efficacy in their interventionists and effects on self-perceptions for exercise in cardiac rehabilitation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine characteristics of client-interventionist interactions that may contribute to development of exercise-related efficacy beliefs of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participants. PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN: Study 1 used a correlational design to investigate relationships between CR program experience and proxy efficacy for in-class and self-regulated exercise in a sample of CR participants (N = 222). Study 2 used an experimental design and mentalizing procedure to manipulate proxy efficacy of CR participants (N = 49) and compared responses to hypothetical scenarios depicting either positive and supportive or interpersonally neutral interactions with CR interventionists. RESULTS: Study 1 showed proxy efficacy was not associated with the quantity of experience participants had with their CR interventionists. Study 2 showed CR participants who imagined working with a positive and supportive interventionist reported greater proxy efficacy and self-efficacy for in-class and self-regulated exercise compared with neutral interventionists' interactions. CONCLUSION: The amount of experience people have with a proxy agent in CR may not contribute directly to proxy efficacy, although supportive and engaging interpersonal behaviors on behalf of proxy agents appear to be important factors that determine strong positive proxy efficacy beliefs as well as self-efficacy. Practitioners in CR and other rehabilitation settings should be mindful of the content of their interactions and the effects of those exchanges on the development of positive proxy and self-efficacy beliefs among their clients.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".