ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2021
Comparison of the printed and online administration of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2).
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06170866 (Peer Partners to Improve Physical Activity in Older Latino and Latina Adults With Parkinson's Disease.), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Peer Partners to Improve Physical Activity in Older Latino and Latina Adults With Parkinson's Disease.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Brazilian Portuguese Version of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire 3 (BREQ-3) Is Reliable and Valid for Assessing Motivational Regulations and Self-Determination in Exercise Among Adults Aged 50 Years or Older: A Methodological Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the traditional printed form of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire with a proposed online form in terms of validity, reliability, and applicability.
methodsA crossover design study was conducted with 157 undergraduate students. Half of the sample answered the printed questionnaire first and then answered the online questionnaire 7 days later, while the other half of the sample did the inverse. Cronbach's alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency of both the online and printed questionnaires. The construct validity was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis, using a weighted least square mean and adjusted variance estimation and oblique rotation. The quality of the model was tested with fit indices.
resultsThe confirmatory factor analysis showed the 19-item structure with five factors: χ2 of 230.718; degrees of freedom of 142; χ2/degrees of freedom of 1.625; comparative fit index of 0.978 and root mean square error of approximation of 0.073. All items presented factorial loads above 0.5. There was also excellent consistency between the formats of administration in all dimensions, with Cronbach's alpha values above 0.70. The stability between the formats of administration varied between 0.78 (95%CI: 0.69-0.85) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.77-0.89), suggesting desirable confidence between both formats of administration.
conclusionThe five-factor model of the online Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire shows internal consistency both in terms of the scale dimensions as well as in terms of the total items.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.