Linking Parental Influences and Youth Participation in Physical Activity In- and Out-of-school: The Mediating Role of Self-efficacy and Enjoyment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Parents influence their children's behavior. We examined parental influence on youth participation in physical activity (PA) in- and out-of-school, directly and/or indirectly, via self-efficacy beliefs and enjoyment of PA. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported data from 595 youth (Mage = 13.4 years). RESULTS: A path model linking youth perceptions of parental support and parental control to their participation in PA indirectly via self-efficacy beliefs and enjoyment of PA provided good fit to the data: χ(2)(7) = 27.63; RMSEA = .07 [90%CI = .04, .10]; CFI = .98; SRMR = .04. Perceived parental control was negatively associated with youth self-efficacy beliefs (β = -.12, p = .01) and enjoyment of PA (β = -.15, p = .01). Perceived tangible parental support was positively associated with self-efficacy beliefs (β = .28, p < .01) and enjoyment of PA (β = .13, p < .01), and perceived intangible parental support was positively associated with enjoyment of PA (β = .18, p = .04). Self-efficacy beliefs and enjoyment of PA were positively associated with participation in PA in- and out-of-school (β = .11-.27, p ≤ .01). CONCLUSION: Interventions targeting parents to promote PA warrant investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".