The reciprocal relationships between autonomous motivation, social cognitive beliefs and rehabilitation adherence: A cross‐lagged panel longitudinal study among post‐surgery <scp>ACL</scp> reconstructed patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this three-wave longitudinal study was to investigate the temporal precedence between the motivational drivers in self-determination theory (SDT) and the social cognitive factors in theory of planned behaviour (TPB). METHOD: = 33.58 ± 10.03, range = 18 to 59; female = 46.2%) completed surveys assessing autonomous motivation from SDT, and attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (PBC), and intention from TPB, and rehabilitation adherence, at baseline (T1), and at 2 months (T2) and 4 months (T3) post-baseline. RESULTS: In a three-wave cross-lagged panel model, autonomous motivation prospectively related to subsequent attitude, subjective norms and PBC, whereas reverse paths were generally small; attitude showed a modest reciprocal link with autonomous motivation. Additionally, a mediation model revealed that T1 autonomous motivation had significant indirect effects on T3 rehabilitation adherence via T2 social cognitive factors and intention, whereas only T1 subjective norms had small indirect effects on T3 rehabilitation adherence through T2 autonomous motivation and intention. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the notion that autonomous motivation precedes social cognitive factors, as proposed in the integrated theoretical model of SDT and TPB. Future research, including experimental interventions, can use the integrated theoretical model to promote various health behaviours, such as rehabilitation protocols, healthy eating habits and hygiene practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".