Associations Between Social Cognitive Determinants and Movement-Related Behaviors in Studies Using Ecological Momentary Assessment Methods: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The social cognitive framework is a long-standing framework within physical activity promotion literature to explain and predict movement-related behaviors. However, applications of the social cognitive framework to explain and predict movement-related behaviors have typically examined the relationships between determinants and behavior across macrotimescales (eg, weeks and months). There is more recent evidence suggesting that movement-related behaviors and their social cognitive determinants (eg, self-efficacy and intentions) change across microtimescales (eg, hours and days). Therefore, efforts have been devoted to examining the relationship between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors across microtimescales. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a growing methodology that can capture movement-related behaviors and social cognitive determinants as they change across microtimescales. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to summarize evidence from EMA studies examining associations between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors (ie, physical activity and sedentary behavior). METHODS: Studies were included if they quantitatively tested such an association at the momentary or day level and excluded if they were an active intervention. Using keyword searches, articles were identified across the PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO databases. Articles were first assessed through abstract and title screening followed by full-text review. Each article was screened independently by 2 reviewers. For eligible articles, data regarding study design, associations between social cognitive determinants and movement-related behaviors, and study quality (ie, Methodological Quality Questionnaire and Checklist for Reporting Ecological Momentary Assessment Studies) were extracted. At least 4 articles were required to draw a conclusion regarding the overall associations between a social cognitive determinant and movement-related behavior. For the social cognitive determinants in which a conclusion regarding an overall association could be drawn, 60% of the articles needed to document a similar association (ie, positive, negative, or null) to conclude that the association existed in a particular direction. RESULTS: A total of 24 articles including 1891 participants were eligible for the review. At the day level, intentions and self-efficacy were positively associated with physical activity. No other associations could be determined because of conflicting findings or the small number of studies investigating associations. CONCLUSIONS: Future research would benefit from validating EMA assessments of social cognitive determinants and systematically investigating associations across different operationalizations of key constructs. Despite the only recent emergence of EMA to understand social cognitive determinants of movement-related behaviors, the findings indicate that daily intentions and self-efficacy play an important role in regulating physical activity in everyday life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022328500; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=328500.
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 | 0.026 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".