Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Nancy M. Gell x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Nancy M. Gell and Danielle D. Wadsworth


The study evaluated the effects of a text message intervention on physical activity in adult working women.


Eightyseven participants were randomized to an intervention (n = 41) or control group (n = 46). Pedometer step counts and measures of self-efficacy were collected at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. Intervention participants received approximately 3 text messages per week that were motivational, informational, and specific to performing physical activity.


ANCOVA results showed a significant difference between groups for mean steps per day at 12 weeks (6540.0 vs. 5685.0, P = .01) and no significant difference at 24 weeks (6867.7 vs. 6189.0, P = .06). There was no change in mean step counts during or after the intervention compared with baseline. There was a significant difference between groups for mean self-efficacy scores at 12 weeks (68.5 vs. 60.3, P = .02) and at 24 weeks (67.3 vs. 59.0, P = .03).


Intervention participants had higher step counts after 12 and 24 weeks compared with a control group; however, the difference was significant only at the midpoint of the intervention and was attributable to a decrease in steps for the control group. Text messaging did not increase step counts but may be a cost-effective tool for maintenance of physical activity behavior.

Restricted access

Mariana Wingood, Salene Jones, Nancy M. Gell, Jennifer S. Brach, and Denise M. Peters

Background: The Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers (IPAB) assesses physical activity participation barriers. Development, refinement, and psychometric evaluation of the IPAB occurred via an electronic format. However, various circumstances may require using a pen-and-paper format. As instrument formats are not always interchangeable, the authors aimed to establish whether 2 different formats (electronic and pen and paper) can be used interchangeably for the IPAB. Methods: This randomized crossover study included 66 community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older (mean age = 73 [SD = 7.6]). Half the sample completed the electronic format of the IPAB first and the pen-and-paper format second, and the other half completed them in reverse order. Tests of equivalence and a Bland–Altman plot were performed. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient between formats was .94, and kappa was .68. The mean difference between the 2 administration forms of the IPAB was 0.002 (P = .96). Both administration formats had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .92 and .93) and illustrated construct validity (P ≤ .001 for both administration formats). Conclusion: Pen-and-paper and electronic formats of the IPAB are equivalent and, thus, can be used interchangeably among non-Hispanic whites who are highly educated. The format should be used consistently if completing preintervention and postintervention evaluations or comparing scores.