| Literature DB >> 29400117 |
Chung Gun Lee1, Seiyeong Park1, Seung Hwan Lee2, Hyunwoo Kim1, Ji-Won Park3.
Abstract
The most critical step in developing and implementing effective physical activity interventions is to understand the determinants and correlates of physical activity, and it is strongly suggested that such effort should be based on theories. The purpose of this study is to test the direct, indirect, and total effect of social cognitive theory constructs on physical activity among Korean male high-school students. Three-hundred and forty-one 10th-grade male students were recruited from a private single-sex high school located in Seoul, South Korea. Structural equation modeling was used to test the expected relationships among the latent variables. The proposed model accounted for 42% of the variance in physical activity. Self-efficacy had the strongest total effect on physical activity. Self-efficacy for being physically active was positively associated with physical activity ( p < .01). Self-efficacy also had positive indirect effects on physical activity through perceived benefits ( p < .05) and goal setting ( p < .01). The results of this study indicated that the social cognitive theory is a useful framework to understand physical activity among Korean male adolescents. Physical activity interventions targeting Korean male high-school students should focus on the major sources of efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; male; physical activity; social cognitive theory; structural equation modeling
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29400117 PMCID: PMC6131439 DOI: 10.1177/1557988318754572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Mens Health ISSN: 1557-9883
Figure 1.Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 2004).
Descriptive Statistics of Social Cognitive Theory Constructs and Physical Activity Among Participants (N = 431).
| Variables | Number of items | CR | Mean ( | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | 8 | 0.94 | 3.89 (1.19) | 1–6 |
| Perceived benefits | 10 | 0.93 | 3.35 (0.52) | 1–4 |
| Perceived barriers | 15 | 0.88 | 1.84 (0.48) | 1–4 |
| Goal setting | 10 | 0.94 | 2.34 (0.69) | 1–4 |
| Physical activity | 6 | 0.84 | 2.67 (0.91) | 1–5 |
Note. SD = standard deviation; CR = composite reliability.
Figure 2.The Measurement Model.
Figure 3.The Structural Model.
The Indirect Effects of Social Cognitive Theory Constructs on Physical Activity Among Participants.
| Indirect effects | Coefficients | 95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | → Perceived benefits | → PA | 0.058 | [0.012, 0.104] | |
| Self-efficacy | → Goal setting | → PA | 0.100 | [0.026, 0.174] | |
| Self-efficacy | → Perceived benefits | → Goal setting | → PA | 0.007 | [−0.003, 0.017] |
| Self-efficacy | → Perceived barriers | → Goal setting | → PA | −0.008 | [−0.018, 0.002] |
| Perceived benefits | → Goal setting | → PA | 0.017 | [−0.005, 0.039] | |
| Perceived barriers | → Goal setting | → PA | 0.020 | [−0.004, 0.044] | |
Note. PA = physical activity; CI = confidence interval.
p < .05. **p < .01.