The Relationships Between Individual and Relation-Inferred Self-Efficacy and Physical Activity in Older Adult Couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Older adults often face daily problems that can interfere with physical activity. Although individual self-efficacy (confidence in one's own abilities) is known to promote physical activity, it overlooks the social influences in older adults' lives. Relation-inferred self-efficacy (the belief that a close other has confidence in one's abilities) may provide additional insight. This study explored associations between daily problems, individual self-efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy with physical activity (moderate to vigorous physical activity and steps). It also examined whether individual and relation-inferred self-efficacy moderate the relationship between daily problems and physical activity. METHODS: A sample of 226 community-dwelling older adults (109 couples and eight individuals) wore accelerometers for up to 7 days to track daily physical activity. Participants also reported daily problems and levels of self-efficacy. Multilevel models were used to examine the associations of self-efficacy and daily challenges with physical activity and to test moderation effects of self-efficacy on the problem-physical activity relationship. RESULTS: Both individual and relation-inferred self-efficacy were positively associated with physical activity when examined separately. However, when modeled together, only relation-inferred self-efficacy remained a significant predictor. Daily problems were not significantly related to physical activity, and there were no significant moderation effects of self-efficacy on the problem-physical activity relationship. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that relation-inferred self-efficacy might be more important than individual self-efficacy for physical activity among older adults, emphasizing the role of social context. Significance/Implications: Interventions promoting physical activity in older adults may benefit from incorporating support from close others to enhance relation-inferred self-efficacy.
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 | 0.000 | 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".