Skip to main content

Table 6 Descriptive statistics, Step 3 F -tests, full model R2 and coefficients for the follow-up linear regression models for number of activities from 150 Play List tried and plan to try, and number of NEW activities tried because of the Play List and new activities planned to continue

From: The short-term effects of a mass reach physical activity campaign: an evaluation using hierarchy of effects model and intention profiles

  Number of activities tried since registration Number planning to continueb Number of NEW activities triedc Number of NEW activities plan to continuec
Descriptives a N = 1095, M = 32.65 (SD = 36.50) N = 1007, M = 17.59 (SD = 25.32) N = 807, M = 12.82 (SD = 19.14) N = 714, M = 6.47 (SD = 13.04)
Predictor F (6, 1081) = 21.39,
p < .001; R2 = .13
F (6, 1081) = 15.42,
p < .001; R2 = .09
F (6, 793) = 8.22,
p < .001; R2 = .07
F (6, 700) = 8.76,
p < .001; R2 = .09
Age −.068 −.081 −.065 −.012
Sex .071 .059 .032 .049
Education .022 −.029 .017 −.030
Minority group .015 −.008 .005 −.054
LTPA .027 .009 .080 .060
Mentioned 150 Play List .040 .028 .065 .065
Mentioned ‘getting active’ .030 −.003 −.013 .094*
Importance .035 .019 .038 .101
Affective attitudes .022 −.029 −.183** −.043
Self-efficacy −.004 .053 .030 −.020
Intentions .041 .040 .067 −.046
150 Play List experience .307** .212** .228** .198**
Ad attitudes .006 .088* −.069 .090
  1. * p < .01, **p < .001
  2. aOnly participants who had advertisement attitudes data were included
  3. bMissing data in this variable were mean replaced; the results of an analysis with or without mean replacement did not differ
  4. cbecause of the large amount of missing data and the nature of the question (i.e., participants may not have answered if they didn’t try new activities) the analyses were conducted without replacing the missing data
\