Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare standard elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers for physical activity and sleep behaviours, to an alternative approach whereby participants were told to only consider the literal meanings of the words prevent/enable. Randomized controlled design. College students were randomized to either a standard methods group (n=177) (what prevents you from doing behaviour X) or a vignette group (n=176) to encourage them to think of the literal meaning of the words prevent/enable. Responses were then codified by two blinded researchers. Students reported significantly different types of control beliefs between groups. Those in the standard group reported significantly more overall beliefs (p's<.05, except sleep/enable), suggesting poorer discrimination in interpreting what was meant by 'prevent' and 'enable'. This study demonstrates when self-efficacy-related control beliefs are elicited, natural language words such as 'prevent' and 'enable' have the potential to confuse people about the intent of the question.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
