The effect of two exercise tests on exercise self-efficacy in COPD patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The strongest source of self-efficacy (SE) information is overt mastery experiences (Bandura, 1997). In many rehabilitation settings, the first exercise experience a patient encounters is the exercise tolerance test. The influence of such a test on a patient's SE for subsequent exercise is unknown. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to test the theoretical specificity of three proposed sub-types of SE. Overt performance of exercise should more strongly influence task SE compared to scheduling or coping. Nineteen (n=12 men, 7 women, mean age = 64.55 years) initiate Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients participated in one cycle and one treadmill exercise tolerance test (in random order) prior to beginning rehabilitation. There were no effects of modality or sex. There was a significant main effect for time (pre-post test), Eta2=.57, SE type, Eta2=.49, with the largest influence on Task SE, a significant effect of test (first vs. second), Eta2=.25 with the first test having the largest effect. The results show that an exercise tolerance test has an important influence on exercise SE in COPD patients, and that the effects are strongest for task SE reinforcing the theoretical distinction of task, coping and scheduling SE.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".