Comparison of the printed and online administration of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2)

Nelson Carvas Junior, Igor Conterato Gomes, Juliana Martins Ribeiro Valassi, Luís Anunciação, Ricardo de Freitas-Dias, Marcia Kiyomi Koike, Nelson Carvas Junior, Igor Conterato Gomes, Juliana Martins Ribeiro Valassi, Luís Anunciação, Ricardo de Freitas-Dias, Marcia Kiyomi Koike

Abstract

Objective: To compare the traditional printed form of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire with a proposed online form in terms of validity, reliability, and applicability.

Methods: A crossover design study was conducted with 157 undergraduate students. Half of the sample answered the printed questionnaire first and then answered the online questionnaire 7 days later, while the other half of the sample did the inverse. Cronbach's alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency of both the online and printed questionnaires. The construct validity was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis, using a weighted least square mean and adjusted variance estimation and oblique rotation. The quality of the model was tested with fit indices.

Results: The confirmatory factor analysis showed the 19-item structure with five factors: χ2 of 230.718; degrees of freedom of 142; χ2/degrees of freedom of 1.625; comparative fit index of 0.978 and root mean square error of approximation of 0.073. All items presented factorial loads above 0.5. There was also excellent consistency between the formats of administration in all dimensions, with Cronbach's alpha values above 0.70. The stability between the formats of administration varied between 0.78 (95%CI: 0.69-0.85) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.77-0.89), suggesting desirable confidence between both formats of administration.

Conclusion: The five-factor model of the online Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire shows internal consistency both in terms of the scale dimensions as well as in terms of the total items.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest:

none.

Figures

Figure 1. Flowchart of sample distribution
Figure 1. Flowchart of sample distribution
Figura 1. Fluxograma da distribuição da amostra
Figura 1. Fluxograma da distribuição da amostra

References

    1. 1. Divyasree P, Kumar GD, Subitha L, Ramesh RS. Level, motivation and barriers to participate in physical activity among late adolescents in Puducherry. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2018;33(2):20180133.
    1. 2. Fernández-Ozcorta EJ, Ferriz R, Arbinaga F, García-Martínez J. Physically active undergraduates: motivational and emotional profiles. J Am Coll Health. 2019;67(7):706-16.
    1. 3. Gerber M, Minghetti A, Beck J, Zahner L, Donath L. Sprint interval training and continuous aerobic exercise training have similar effects on exercise motivation and affective responses to exercise in patients with major depressive disorders: a randomized controlled trial. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:694.
    1. 4. Bates SC, Cox JM. The impact of computer versus paper–pencil survey, and individual versus group administration, on self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Comput Human Behav. 2008;24(3):903-16.
    1. 5. Booth-Kewley S, Larson GE, Miyoshi DK. Social desirability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires. Comput Human Behav. 2007;23(1):463-77.
    1. 6. Vidal Días R, Domínguez-Álvarez JA. Response quality of self-administered questionnaires: a comparison between paper and web questionnaires. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2014;32(2):256-69.
    1. 7. Braekman E, Berete F, Charafeddine R, Demarest S, Drieskens S, Gisle L, et al. Measurement agreement of the self-administered questionnaire of the Belgian health interview survey: paper-and-pencil versus web-based mode. PLoS One. 2018;21(5):e0197434.
    1. 8. Bressani RV, Downs AC. Youth independent living assessment: testing the equivalence of web and paper/pencil versions of the ansell–casey life skills assessment. Comput Human Behav. 2002;18(4):453-64.
    1. 9. Campos JA, Zucoloto ML, Bonafé FS, Jordani PC, Maroco J. Reliability and validity of self-reported burnout in college students: a cross randomized comparison of paper-and-pencil vs. online administration. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(5):1875-83.
    1. 10. Fish RA, McGuire B, Hogan M, Morrison TG, Stewart I. Validation of the chronic pain acceptance questionnaire (CPAQ) in an internet sample and development and preliminary validation of the CPAQ-8. Pain. 2010;149(3):435-43.
    1. 11. Ebert JF, Huibers L, Christensen B, Christensen MB. Paper-or web-based questionnaire invitations as a method for data collection: cross-sectional comparative study of differences in response rate, completeness of data, and financial cost. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(1):e24.
    1. 12. Fekete C, Segerer W, Gemperli A, Brinkhof MW; SwiSCI Study Group. Participation rates, response bias and response behaviours in the community survey of the Swiss Spinal Cord Injury Cohort Study (SwiSCI). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:80.
    1. 13. Buchanan T, Ali T, Heffernan TM, Ling J, Parrott AC, Rodgers J, et al. Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: the case of the prospective memory questionnaire. Behav Res Methods. 2005;37(1):148-54.
    1. 14. Finegan JE, Allen NJ. Computerized and written questionnaires: Are they equivalent? Comput Human Behav. 1994;10(4):483-96.
    1. 15. Mullan E, Markland D, Ingledew DK. A graded conceptualisation of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Pers Individ Dif. 1997;23(5):745-52.
    1. 16. Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to Include an assessment of amotivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26(2):191-6.
    1. 17. Palmeira AL, Teixeira P, Silva MN, Markland D. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire - Portuguese version. 12th European Congress of Sport Psychology. Halkidiki, (GR): FESPAC; 2007.
    1. 18. Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos teóricos, softwares e aplicações. 2a ed. revisada e aumentada. Pêro Pinheiro: Report Number; 2014. p.28. Capítulo 4. Etapa da análise de equação estruturais.
    1. 19. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1-36.
    1. 20. Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos teóricos, softwares e aplicações. 2a ed. Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber; 2014. p.381
    1. 21. Marôco J, Garcia-Marques T. Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões e soluções modernas? Lab Psicol. 2006;4(1):65-90.
    1. 22. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34-42.
    1. 23. Suh Y. The performance of maximum likelihood and weighted least square mean and variance adjusted estimators in testing differential item functioning with nonnormal trait distributions. Struct Equ Modeling. 2015;22(4):568-80.
    1. 24. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL. Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: a meta-analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2009;14(Pt 2):275-302.
    1. 25. Costa R, Probst M, Bastos T, Vilhena E, Seabra A, Corredeira R. Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire in people with schizophrenia: construct validity of the Portuguese versions. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(21):2577-84.
    1. 26. Crǎciun MT, Rus CL. Factorial validity and reliability evidence for the modified Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire - 2 among Romanian adolescents. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;33:528-32.
    1. 27. Moustaka FC, Vlachopoulos SP, Vazou S, Kaperoni M, Markland DA. Initial validity evidence for the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 among greek exercise participants. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2010;26(4): 269-76.
    1. 28. Murcia JA, Gimeno EC, Camacho AM. Measuring self-determination motivation in a physical fitness setting: validation of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2) in a Spanish sample. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2007;47(3):366-74.
    1. 29. No-in K, Tuicomepee A, Jiamjarasrangsi W, Sithisarankul P. Validation of Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2) and dietary self-regulation (DSR) in overweight high school students in Thailand. J Heal Res. 2015;29(4):269-76.
    1. 30. Vlachopoulos SP. Measurement equivalence of the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire - 2 across greek men and women exercise participants. Hell J Psychol. 2012;9(1):1-17.
    1. 31. Hedman E, Ljótsson B, Rück C, Furmark T, Carlbring P, Lindefors N, et al. Internet administration of self-report measures commonly used in research on social anxiety disorder: a psychometric evaluation. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26(4):736-40.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する