Comparing the Psychometric Properties of Two Physical Activity Self-Efficacy Instruments in Urban, Adolescent Girls: Validity, Measurement Invariance, and Reliability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. This study compared the psychometric properties of two self-efficacy instruments related to physical activity. Factorial validity, cross-group and longitudinal invariance, and composite reliability were examined. Methods. Secondary analysis was conducted on data from a group randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a 17-week intervention on increasing moderate to vigorous physical activity among 5th-8th grade girls (N=1,012). Participants completed a 6-item Physical Activity Self-Efficacy scale (PASE) and a 7-item Self-Efficacy for Exercise Behaviors scale (SEEB) at baseline and post-intervention. Confirmatory factor analyses for intervention and control groups were conducted with Mplus Version 7.4 using robust weighted least squares estimation. Model fit was evaluated with the chi-square index, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Composite reliability for latent factors with ordinal indicators was computed from Mplus output using SAS 9.3. Results. Mean age of the girls was 12.2 years (SD=.96). One-third of the girls were obese. Girls represented a diverse sample with over 50% indicating black race and an additional 19% identifying as mixed or other race. Both instruments demonstrated configural invariance for simultaneous analysis of cross-group and longitudinal invariance based on alternative fit indices. However, simultaneous metric invariance was not met for the PASE or the SEEB instruments. Partial metric invariance for the simultaneous analysis was achieved for the PASE with one factor loading identified as non-invariant. Partial metric invariance was not met for the SEEB. Longitudinal scalar invariance was achieved for both instruments in the control group but not the intervention group. Composite reliability for the PASE ranged from .772-.842. Reliability for the SEEB ranged from .719-.800 indicating higher reliability for the PASE. Reliability was more stable over time in the control group for both instruments. Conclusions. Results suggest that the intervention influenced how girls responded to indicator items. Neither of the instruments achieved simultaneous metric invariance making it difficult to assess mean differences in PA self-efficacy between groups. Keywords: measurement invariance, physical activity, self-efficacy, adolescents, girls
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".