The purpose of this study was to improve understanding of the link between self-presentational concerns and competitive anxiety. Specifically, we examined (a) associations among self-presentational concerns and competitive state anxiety dimensional symptom responses using the modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and (b) whether self-presentational concerns mediate trait–state anxiety relationships. In addressing these matters, we also examined the factor structure and composition of the Self-Presentation in Sport Questionnaire (SPSQ; Wilson & Eklund, 1998). Results showed that self-presentational concerns were positively associated with intensity and frequency dimensional symptoms and negatively associated with direction symptoms. Results also showed that self-presentational concerns demonstrated consistently higher associations with the cognitive component and the intensity symptom of the CSAI-2 state measures. Results showed no support for the notion that self-presentational concerns mediate the trait–state anxiety relationship. When examining the factor structure and composition of the SPSQ, the results from two independent athlete samples support the tenability of an abbreviated 21-item four-factor model. Thus the newly constituted scale is recommended for measuring self-presentational concerns in sport.
Erin McGowan, Harry Prapavessis and Natascha Wesch
Nerissa Campbell, Harry Prapavessis, Casey Gray, Erin McGowan, Elaine Rush and Ralph Maddison
Background/Objective: This study investigated the validity of the Actiheart device for estimating free-living physical activity energy expenditure (PAEE) in adolescents. Subjects/Methods: Total energy expenditure (TEE) was measured in eighteen Canadian adolescents, aged 15–18 years, by DLW. Physical activity energy expenditure was calculated as 0.9 X TEE minus resting energy expenditure, assuming 10% for the thermic effect of feeding. Participants wore the chest mounted Actiheart device which records simultaneously minute-by-minute acceleration (ACC) and heart rate (HR). Using both children and adult branched equation modeling, derived from laboratory-based activity, PAEE was estimated from the ACC and HR data. Linear regression analyses examined the association between PAEE derived from the Actiheart and DLW method where DLW PAEE served as the dependent variable. Measurement of agreement between the two methods was analyzed using the Bland-Altman procedure. Results: A nonsignificant association was found between the children derived Actiheart and DLW PAEE values (R = .23, R 2 = .05, p = .36); whereas a significant association was found between the adult derived Actiheart and DLW PAEE values (R = .53, R 2 = .29, p < .05). Both the children and adult equation models lead to overestimations of PAEE by the Actiheart compared with the DLW method, by a mean difference of 31.42 kcal·kg−·d−1 (95% limits of agreement: −45.70 to −17.15 kcal·kg−1·d−1 and 9.80 kcal·kg−1·d−1 (95% limits of agreement: −21.22-1.72 kcal·kg−1·d−1), respectively. Conclusion: There is relatively poor measurement of agreement between the Actiheart and DLW for assessing free-living PAEE in adolescents. Future work should develop group based branched equation models specifically for adolescents to improve the utility of the device in this population.
Louise Foley, Harry Prapavessis, Ralph Maddison, Shauna Burke, Erin McGowan and Lisa Gillanders
Two studies were conducted to predict physical activity in school-aged children. Study 1 tested the utility of an integrated model in predicting physical activity (PA) intention and behavior—the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and self-efficacy theory. Six hundred and forty-five New Zealand children (aged 11–13 years) completed measures corresponding to the integrated model and a self-reported measure of PA one week later. Perceived behavioral control (PBC) and subjective norm were the two strongest predictors of intentions. Task efficacy and barrier efficacy were the two strongest predictors of PA. A second study (Study 2) was conducted to determine whether the self-efficacy measures could discriminate objectively measured PA levels. Sixty-seven Canadian children (aged 11–13 years) completed task and barrier self-efficacy measures. The following week, children classified as ‘high’ (n = 11) and ‘lower’ (n = 7) for both task and barrier efficacy wore an Actical® monitor for seven consecutive days to provide activity-related energy expenditure (AEE) data. Results showed that children with high efficacy expended significantly greater AEE than their lower efficacious counterparts. Findings from these two studies provide support for the use of self-efficacy interventions as a potentially useful means of increasing PA levels among school-aged children.