Evaluating an Adapted Physical Activity Program for University Students and Staff Living with a Physical Disability and/or Chronic Condition through a Self-Determination Theory Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this mixed-method study was to (1) examine the effect of an adapted physical activity program, Fitness Access McGill (FAM), on leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), autonomous and controlled motivation, and the basic psychological needs of self-determination theory among university students/staff with a physical disability and/or chronic conditions, and (2) explore participants’ experiences after completing FAM. Nineteen participants completed validated questionnaires for all study outcomes pre- and post-FAM. Nine participants partook in a 30–60 min semi-structured interview conducted within three months of completing FAM. Quantitative data were analyzed using repeated measures effect size calculations. Qualitative data were analyzed using directed content analysis. Participants reported an increase in total LTPA (dRMpooled = 0.58), with the greatest positive change on strenuous intensity (dRMpooled = 0.81). Large effects were found for changes in autonomous motivation (dRMpooled = 0.52), autonomy (dRMpooled = 0.79), competence (dRMpooled = 0.79), and relatedness (dRMpooled = 0.89). Participants reported FAM being supportive towards their psychological needs, the development of a LTPA routine, and enhanced overall well-being. Future research can be built upon this study to develop a robust understanding as to how need-supportive, adapted LTPA programs could be implemented within community settings or out-patient rehabilitation to support exercise engagement, physical health and overall well-being among adults with disabilities.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".