Wheels in Motion: Mobility's Relationship with Self-Efficacy and LeisureTime Physical Activity in People with Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a cross-sectional design, Bandura's (1986) Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy Theory (1977) were used as a framework to determine whether wheelchairuse self-efficacy and exercise barrier self-efficacy mediate the relationship between wheelchair mobility and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Fourty-six manual wheelchair users (76.1 % male), with varying levels of SCI (80.4% paraplegic, 47.8% complete injuries) participated in this study. Participants completed The Wheelchair Skills Test version 4.1 (Wheelchair Skills Test Version 4.1 [WST 4.1],2008) which measured wheelchair mobility, a modified barrier self-efficacy questionnaire (McAuley & Mihalko, 1998) which measured exercise barrier self-efficacy, the Wheelchair Mobility Confidence Scale (WMCS; Rushton & Miller, 2009) which measured wheelchair-use self-efficacy, and the Physical Activity Recall Assessment for people with SCI (PARA-SCI; Martin Ginis, Latimer, Hicks & Craven, 2005) which measured LTPA. It was hypothesized that (1) there would be a positive relationship between wheelchair mobility and LTPA, and (2) wheelchair-use self-efficacy and exercise barrier self-efficacy would mediate this relationship. Using linear regression models, a positive association between wheelchair mobility and LTPA was established (β = .29, p < .05). Exercise barrier self-efficacy was a significant partial mediator, explaining 47.7% ofthe variance in the mobility-LTPA relationship. Wheelchair-use selfefficacy was a non-significant mediator. This thesis has practical and theoretical implications for understanding and improving LTPA participation and represents the first study to determine the relationship between wheelchair mobility, self-efficacy, and LTPA in people living with SCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".