Examining the relationship between motivation and the physical activity behaviour of Canadian youth with physical disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth with physical disabilities are less physically active than their typically developing peers, warranting the need to examine factors that influence their physical activity (PA) behaviour. Self-Determination Theory holds that behaviour is motivated by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Research indicates that intrinsic motivation is a powerful factor predicting PA behaviour among youth and adults without disabilities, but remains unexplored in youth with physical disabilities. The current study examined the associations between different types of motivation and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) in youth with physical disabilities. As part of a larger ongoing national study examining the current PA trends of Canadian youth (ages 12 – 21 years) with physical disabilities, participants (N=18; Mage=16.96 ± 2.10 years, 50% male) completed the Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire 3 (BREQ-3), and wore an accelerometer over a 7-day period. Correlation analyses were conducted to determine the relationships between each subscale of the BREQ-3 and MVPA. Nonsignificant, small- to moderate-sized correlations were found between MVPA and all six forms of regulation (rs= -.07 to .37, all ps > .05), with the strongest relationships shown between MVPA and integrated regulation (r=.37, p=.21), and amotivation (r=-.34, p=.25). This is the first study to examine the relationship between motivation and PA in youth with physical disabilities. These effect sizes are promising and warrant the continued investigation of this relationship in a larger sample. These findings would provide insight on which types of motivation are important factors related to the PA behaviour of this population, which can then be targeted in PA interventions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".