Are the Physical Activity Parenting Practices Reported by US and Canadian Parents Captured in Currently Published Instruments?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the physical activity parenting practices (PAPPs) parents report using with the PAPPs incorporated in the published literature. METHODS: PAPPs in the literature were identified by reviewing the content of 74 published PAPP measures obtained from current systematic reviews supplemented with a literature search. The types of PAPPs used by parents were identified by surveying a stratified sample of 134 Canadian and US parents of 5- to 12 year-old children. Items from the literature and parent responses were coded using the same coding scheme. Differences between the PAPPs emphasized by the parents and the literature were examined. RESULTS: Parents significantly emphasized different issues than what is measured in the literature (P < .001). Parents emphasized more control (13.6% vs. 6.9%), modeling and teaching (13.2% vs. 9.2%), and structural strategies (32.2% vs. 28.6%) and less autonomy support (11.8% vs. 14.0%), logistical support (9.9% vs. 12.8%), and responsiveness strategies (19.3% vs. 28.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity practices most often employed by parents are not the ones emphasized in current measures. The extent to which putting more emphasis on the areas identified by parents will increase the predictive validity of the measures warrants further examination.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".