OBJECTIVE: For stage-matched interventions, individuals must be classified with respect to their previous behaviors and in conjunction with their future intentions. A novel procedure for the assessment of stages in physical activity was developed. For this, individuals' activity and their regarding intentions were compared with recommended levels of activity. The aim was to examine the psychometric properties. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study, stages were assessed in 366 study participants (84 in cardiac and 282 in orthopedic rehabilitation) in terms of their previous physical activity and their intention to perform recommended activity levels in the future. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stages of change were compared to self-reported behavior, intention, planning, self-efficacy, risk perception, pros, cons, and social support. Misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, non-linear trends, and planned contrasts were computed. RESULTS: In comparison to previous studies, sensitivity (44%-99%) was high and specificity was similar or low (3%-88%), depending on the type of validation outcome selected. When using less demanding criteria (i.e., less intensive activity), measurement quality decreased, although not always significantly. Applying contrast analyses, more than half of the predicted stage differences were confirmed. No main differences between orthopedic and cardiac, ambulant and stationary rehabilitation appeared and no interactions were found. CONCLUSION: The stage algorithm proved to have acceptable measurement qualities in study participants recruited in both cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation. Especially in detecting Intenders and Actors the stage algorithm performed well. Mechanisms of adopting and maintaining recommended activity levels seem to operate equally in both groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: For stage-matched interventions, individuals must be classified with respect to their previous behaviors and in conjunction with their future intentions. A novel procedure for the assessment of stages in physical activity was developed. For this, individuals' activity and their regarding intentions were compared with recommended levels of activity. The aim was to examine the psychometric properties. DESIGN: In a cross-sectional study, stages were assessed in 366 study participants (84 in cardiac and 282 in orthopedic rehabilitation) in terms of their previous physical activity and their intention to perform recommended activity levels in the future. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stages of change were compared to self-reported behavior, intention, planning, self-efficacy, risk perception, pros, cons, and social support. Misclassification, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, non-linear trends, and planned contrasts were computed. RESULTS: In comparison to previous studies, sensitivity (44%-99%) was high and specificity was similar or low (3%-88%), depending on the type of validation outcome selected. When using less demanding criteria (i.e., less intensive activity), measurement quality decreased, although not always significantly. Applying contrast analyses, more than half of the predicted stage differences were confirmed. No main differences between orthopedic and cardiac, ambulant and stationary rehabilitation appeared and no interactions were found. CONCLUSION: The stage algorithm proved to have acceptable measurement qualities in study participants recruited in both cardiac and orthopedic rehabilitation. Especially in detecting Intenders and Actors the stage algorithm performed well. Mechanisms of adopting and maintaining recommended activity levels seem to operate equally in both groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Marimer Santiago-Rivas; Wayne F Velicer; Colleen A Redding; James O Prochaska; Andrea L Paiva Journal: Psychol Health Med Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 2.423
Authors: Richard R Rosenkranz; Mitch J Duncan; Cristina M Caperchione; Gregory S Kolt; Corneel Vandelanotte; Anthony J Maeder; Trevor N Savage; W Kerry Mummery Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Andrea Zülke; Tobias Luck; Alexander Pabst; Wolfgang Hoffmann; Jochen René Thyrian; Jochen Gensichen; Hanna Kaduszkiewicz; Hans-Helmut König; Walter E Haefeli; David Czock; Birgitt Wiese; Thomas Frese; Susanne Röhr; Steffi G Riedel-Heller Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Claudia R Pischke; Claudia Voelcker-Rehage; Manuela Peters; Tiara Ratz; Hermann Pohlabeln; Jochen Meyer; Kai von Holdt; Sonia Lippke Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2020-04-27