ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Development and Preliminary Validation of the Physical Education-Study Process Questionnaire : Insights for Physical Education University Students.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the increase in the specialized performance of athletes using artificial neural network (ANN) exercises.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Adaptation and validation of the revised two-factor study process questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) for tertiary physical education contexts in China.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- Modelling the associations between academic engagement, study process and grit on academic achievement of physical education and sport university students.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- The Types of Learning Approaches Used by Engineering Students in Three Scenarios: An Adaptation of the R-SPQ-2F to China.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Revised Two Factor Study Process Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F) is used to examine students' study approaches in higher education. The questionnaire is designed to measure two factors: deep and surface approaches. In order to measure these approaches for students in physical education and sport, a new measurement instrument should take into consideration the practical context of this field of education that makes it specific to other fields. Objective: The present study aims (a) to develop and empirical test of a new instrument for measuring the study process in physical education and sports students, and (b) to test psychometric properties of the tool. Methods: Two exploratory and confirmatory samples of physical education students enrolled in a bachelor's degree program in physical education at the High Institute of Physical Education and Sports of Kef-Tunisia, aged 19-26 years, were recruited online among female students ( Results: Exploratory factor analysis showed a suitable four factors solution, which is approved by confirmatory factor analysis indices [χ2 = 466.47, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.56 IC 90% (0.050-0.062)]. Internal consistency of the PE-SPQ simultaneously checked by McDonald's ω, Cronbach's α and Gutmann's λ6 showed good reliability of the PE-SPQ. Convergent validity examined by Average variance extracted (AVE) was good. The comparison between the AVE root mean square and Pearson correlation coefficients of each factor with his indicators reveals the discriminant validity of the PE-SPQ. Furthermore, Pearson's correlation between the PE-SPQ factors and the R-SPQ-2F establishes the concurrent validity of the new scale. Conclusion: The PE-SPQ scale is valid and reliable and can be used to assess study process factors in physical education students.
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.