ArticlePloS one2024
Validation and invariance testing of the English Short Physical activity enjoyment scale.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enjoyment is recognized as a determinant of physical activity habits. The enjoyment of engaging in physical activity can be measured with the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES). Later versions of this scale have been shortened to capture the component of subjective feeling, which has been validated using German-speaking samples. The aim of this study was to examine internal consistency, factorial validity, criterion-related validity, test-retest reliability, and measurement invariance (across gender and languages) in an English-speaking population. Data on physical activity enjoyment and self-reported physical activity were collected through an online survey with a test-retest design (n = 276,189 female, M = 42.55, SD = 16.81 years) conducted from September 2023 to December 2023. In addition, a German-speaking sample (n = 1017, 497 female, M = 29.77, SD = 13.54 years) was analyzed to assess measurement invariance with respect to language. McDonald's omega at time 1 was ω = 0.95. The confirmatory factor analysis supports the assumption of the unidimensional structure of PACES-S (χ2 = 19.8, df = 2, p < 0.05; CFI = 0.984; RMSEA = 0.180, 90% CI [0.113-0.256]), as the model fit can be estimated as good in view of the CFI value, while the sensitivity of the χ2 test is very high and the RMSEA may underestimate the model fit. Although the RMSEA value is higher than the conventional threshold, the small number of degrees of freedom may have a significant impact on this indicator. The criterion-related validity for light physical activity was r(107) = 0.26 (p < 0.05). The retest reliability was r(199) = 0.69 (p < 0.05). Further, the results supported measurement invariance across gender and partial measurement invariance across languages. Overall, the English PACES-S demonstrated good psychometric properties specifically for light intensity of physical activity, and can serve as an economical instrument to assess physical activity enjoyment.
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.