Examining the Between‐ and Within‐Person Associations Between Psychological Stress and Physical Activity: A Random Intercept Cross‐Lagged Panel Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Physical activity is well‐evidenced to reduce stress and health risks. Frequent or prolonged psychological stress increases the risk for physical and mental health morbidities. Further, high stress may also impair physical activity behaviours. Eight hundred adults ( M age = 41.47, SD = 13.61; % women = 47.5%) completed questionnaires at baseline, as well as one‐ and two‐month follow‐ups that were used to measure physical activity and psychological stress. A random intercept cross‐lagged panel model was fit to explore the bidirectional, month‐to‐month associations between physical activity and psychological stress. There were significant between‐person associations between psychological stress and physical activity ( r = −0.209, SE = 0.050, 95% CI = [−0.307, −0.110]). The within‐person associations between physical activity and subsequent psychological stress ( b = −0.069, SE = 0.048, 95% CI = [−0.162, 0.024]) as well as stress and subsequent physical activity ( b = −0.094, SE = 0.105, 95% CI = [−0.301, 0.112]) were non‐significant, but medium‐to‐large ( = −0.114, = −0.111) and small‐to‐medium ( = −0.065, −0.057) in magnitude, respectively. Our findings demonstrate that, on average, individuals participating in greater levels of physical activity report lower stress. Further research is needed to explore the discrepancy between the significant between‐person effects and the non‐significant within‐person cross‐lagged effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".