Identifying salient beliefs regarding physical activity among parents of children with disabilities: An elicitation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parental support is an important contributor to physical activity (PA) among children and youth with disabilities (CWD) (Antle et al., 2007), yet predictors of parental support are not well understood. Purpose: To examine salient beliefs related to parental support among parents of CWD. Methods: Parents of CWD (N=28; Mage = 39.7, 92.5% female) completed an online questionnaire designed to elicit behavioural, normative and control beliefs based on an adapted Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 2006; Rhodes et al., 2013). Content analyses identified parents' salient beliefs about a) PA participation and b) supporting PA for CWD. Results: Salient beliefs included: a) behavioural beliefs for PA such as health benefits, feelings of normalcy, social interactions; b) behavioural beliefs for supporting PA such as bonding, parent PA participation, safety, mood and effort; c) normative beliefs regarding the importance of school, families with CWD and doctors; d) control beliefs for PA regarding availability, quality and accessibility of programming, and e) control beliefs for supporting PA including time, cost and transportation. Conclusion: Findings suggested that parents hold a range of beliefs toward PA and supporting their child's PA. Control beliefs were most prominently discussed. These data will inform the development of a questionnaire to identify key predictors of parental support, preferred sources and methods of communication for information and interventions regarding CWD PA. Information gained from this study will contribute to our understanding of parental support and examine the applicability of the TPB in identifying predictors of parental support for PA among CWD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".