MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793861623

Examining the Feasibility and Effects of a Pilot Online Physical Activity Intervention Targeting Social Cognitive Variables in Youth with Physical Disabilities

2017· article· en· W2793861623 on OpenAlexaff
Ritu Sharma, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, John Cairney, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial cognitive theoryPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)FidelityPsychologyCognitionThe InternetPopulationRepeated measures designBehavior change methodsApplied psychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, and short- and longer-term effects of a four-week social cognitive theory-based online physical activity (PA) intervention on the social cognitions and PA behaviour of youth with physical disabilities. Intervention feasibility was supported by high implementation fidelity (100%), high compliance (95.32%), and positive ratings on indicators of acceptability. A series of one-way, repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant: (a) small-to-medium-sized increases in participants’ task (F[2, 11] = 5.89, η2p = .28) and barrier (F[2, 11] = 4.66, η2p = .24) self-efficacy; (b) large-sized increases in the use of goal-setting (F[2, 11] = 11.01, η2p = .42), and scheduling and planning (F[2, 11] = 10.66, η2p = .42); and (c) a medium-sized increase in PA behaviour (F[2, 11] = 5.32, η2p = .26). Key study implications and contributions to a growing field of research on technology-based PA interventions for youth are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207