Skip to main content

Table 4 Total effects between motivational constructs and physical activity outcomes

From: Motivational determinants of physical activity in disadvantaged populations with (pre)diabetes: a cross-cultural comparison

     

Ugandaa

 

South Africa

Sweden

 
     

Vigorous PA

Moderate PA

Vigorous PA

Moderate PA

Vigorous PA

Moderate PA

Identified Regulation

→

PA Outcome

1.130***

.378

−.034

1.816***

.067

−.094

Social Support

→

Identified Regulation

.107***

.107***

.101***

.099***

.116*

.112*

Barrier Self-Efficacy

→

Identified Regulation

.167***

.166***

−.057

−.055

.225

.227

Social Support

→

PA Outcome

.327***

.229**

.183*

.068

−.000

.778***

Barrier Self-Efficacy

→

PA Outcome

−.119

.264

−.092

.391**

1.390

1.016

Model fit:

CFI

  

.952

 

.922

 

.929

 
  

TLI

  

1.000

 

1.000

 

1.000

 
  

RMSEA

  

.035

 

.052

 

.029

 
  

90% CI RMSEA

  

.028–.041

.046–0.059

.000–.049

  

RSMR

  

.043

 

.066

 

.066

 
  1. Legend: The estimates represent unstandardized coefficients. PA physical activity, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation, RMSEA 90% CI 90% confidence interval for RMSEA, SRMR standardized root mean square residual
  2. p-value < 0.1 “*”, p < 0.05 “**”,p < 0.005 “***”. areported in [17]
Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us