View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Initial Validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ)

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Initial Validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ)
Language: English
Authors: Elsborg, P. (ORCID 0000-0002-1770-2274), Wikman, J. M. (ORCID 0000-0002-5177-8002), Nielsen, G. (ORCID 0000-0003-2854-7182), Tolver, A. (ORCID 0000-0003-1109-9889), Elbe, A.-M (ORCID 0000-0002-8392-2451)
Source: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2017 21(2):57-68.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Individual Power, Exercise, Questionnaires, Test Construction, Test Validity, Factor Analysis, Factor Structure, Foreign Countries, Undergraduate Students, Graduate Students, Inhibition, Self Esteem, Coping, Failure, Statistical Analysis
Geographic Terms: Denmark
DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1251436
ISSN: 1091-367X
Abstract: The present study describes the development and validation of an instrument to measure volition in the exercise context. Volition describes an individual's self-regulatory mental processes that are responsible for taking and maintaining a desirable action (e.g., exercising regularly). The scale structure was developed in an exploratory factor analysis which resulted in a reliable structure of the following six factors: "Volitional Inhibition--Reasons," "Volitional Inhibition--Postponing Training," "Volitional Facilitation--Self-Confidence," "Volitional Inhibition--Unrelated Thoughts," "Volitional Inhibition--Approval From Others," and "Volitional Facilitation--Coping with Failure." A sound theoretical explanation for these six factors is based on the Personal System Interaction Theory. This six-factor structure was also confirmed in a new sample in a confirmatory factor analysis, delivering an 18-item questionnaire with strong model fit and good internal consistency. In addition, the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire showed convergent validity because it was able to predict exercise participation. It showed incremental validity by explaining additional variance to the Sport Motivation Scale's well-established predictors of exercise participation.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 40
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1135504
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEkS6S44Eow4ZtzIu1mTO9_AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJ-CaKu8sapzpchyjwIBEICBmjQMaBLzgY10NjMVsQ3QwEzsGvyTDgDHtShXayic3usmTlWchRXjSKZnNL8oDoFnlCmQwINs7wcqFdR_TkB0ZktHmYq8UZKcS0PuB4H4cejBzB5zNLeg6-UadMTbEDE7bQ8pzwodFPUkQURhrJkI1dsnbFLJLGd-HlcBDJH8iT2zRoEUY0ryL_-AJOpjRHpTyc4ehqUrahB6euU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0122101219;7mm01apr.17;2019Feb12.18:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0122101219-1">Development and Initial Validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ). </title> <p>The present study describes the development and validation of an instrument to measure volition in the exercise context. Volition describes an individual's self-regulatory mental processes that are responsible for taking and maintaining a desirable action (e.g., exercising regularly). The scale structure was developed in an exploratory factor analysis which resulted in a reliable structure of the following six factors: Volitional Inhibition—Reasons, Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training, Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence, Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts, Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others, and Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure. A sound theoretical explanation for these six factors is based on the Personal System Interaction Theory. This six-factor structure was also confirmed in a new sample in a confirmatory factor analysis, delivering an 18-item questionnaire with strong model fit and good internal consistency. In addition, the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire showed convergent validity because it was able to predict exercise participation. It showed incremental validity by explaining additional variance to the Sport Motivation Scale's well-established predictors of exercise participation.</p> <p>Keywords: physical activity; self-regulation; motivation; psychometrics</p> <p>The promotion of regular physical activity in the general population is an important public health aim. Regular physical activity has been shown to improve quality of life and to reduce the incidence and implications of many diseases and disabilities (Biddle, Mutrie, Mutrie, & Gorely, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]). Therefore, factors influencing the participation in recreational sporting and exercise activities have been given attention by scholars, policy makers, and practitioners. Most research on the psychological predictors for participation in exercise has focused on motivational factors. Numerous conceptual frameworks, such as the Self Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]), the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]), and the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref4">33</reflink>]), and the application of questionnaires related to these frameworks, such as the Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]), the Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire (Mullan, Markland, & Ingledew, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref6">29</reflink>]), and the Stage of Change Questionnaire (Marcus, Eaton, Rossi, & Harlow, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref7">24</reflink>]), have provided important findings on how motivation is related to promotion and adherence to exercise behavior (e.g., Papaioannou, Bebetsos, Theodorakis, Christodoulidis, & Kouli, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref8">31</reflink>]; Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref9">37</reflink>]). These motivational concepts and scales, however, explain only part of the variance in exercise involvement (Ekkekakis & Zenko, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref10">8</reflink>]). They therefore provide only limited theoretical scope for research about psychological factors that can explain adherence to sport and exercise and for interventions aiming at increasing exercise involvement. A psychological factor which might have additional explanatory power as to why individuals either keep up regular exercise or refrain from it is volition.</p> <p>The concept of volition refers to an individual's self-regulatory mental processes that are responsible for taking and maintaining a desirable action (e.g., exercising regularly), even when this action is exposed to internal and external resistance. Researchers have argued for a distinction between motivation (deciding on a specific action, including thinking about the consequences of this action) and volition (implementing and completing the given action) to more fully understand the cognitive processes of an acting individual (Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref11">12</reflink>]; Heckhausen, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>]). The theoretical frameworks that deal only with the construct of motivation provide knowledge on choice of goals; however, this does not seem adequate if nothing is known about how these goals are attained (Kuhl, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref13">20</reflink>]). Kuhl ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref14">20</reflink>]) argued that the theoretical exclusion of volition should be avoided, since both motivation and volition are important mental processes to consider when explaining an individual's actions. Such a theoretical inclusion of the concept of volition is presented in the Rubicon Model of Action Phases (see Figure 1; Heckhausen, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. The Rubicon Model of Action Phases. (Heckhausen, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref16">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Rubicon Model of Action Phases describes four consecutive phases of goal striving, two of which can be described as motivational and two as volitional in nature. The pre-decisional phase, in which the individual formulates a goal intention and deliberates on the positive consequences of achieving it, requires a motivational mindset. This leads to the pre-actional phase, in which the individual plans the succeeding steps of reaching the goal, which requires a volitional mindset. The subsequent actional phase, in which the individual engages in determined and persistent pursuit of the goal, requires a volitional mindset. Finally, the post-actional phase, in which the individual evaluates the goal attainment success and the consequences of these actions, requires a motivational mindset (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref17">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>A number of empirical studies have shown that the motivational and the volitional mindset differ markedly in information processing and thought content, lending support to the Rubicon Model of Action Phases. Heckhausen and Gollwitzer ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>]) found that subjects in the motivational state of mind exhibited greater memory span, interpreted as a state-dependent increase in sensitivity to incoming information, than their counterparts in the volitional state of mind. Furthermore, the thought content of subjects in the motivational state of mind had a higher degree of incentive values, expectancy outcomes, and meta-motivational directives, while subjects in the volitional state of mind were preoccupied with implementation concerns. These findings support the idea of mindsets as task-relevant: Without the motivational mindset, the individual cannot accurately determine the feasibility and desirability of wishes and desires, and without the volitional mindset, the individual would, based on fluctuations in desirability and feasibility, switch from task to task without completing any of them. Gollwitzer, Heckhausen, and Steller ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref19">13</reflink>]) found that subjects differ in thought flow depending on their state of mind; when in a motivational mindset, subjects had a higher extent of thoughts concerning the desirability and feasibility of their goals, while thoughts concerning implementation of these goals prevailed when subjects were in a volitional mindset. Beckmann and Gollwitzer ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>]) showed a difference in the analysis of information; subjects in the motivational state of mind recalled assignment-irrelevant information better than the subjects in the volitional state of mind. Looking at the four phases of the Rubicon Model of Action Phases, it seems that motivational theories, such as SDT (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>]), offer explanations for the motivational mindset. When it comes to initiating and completing an action (e.g., meeting up with friends to exercise), SDT does not offer much explanation regarding the non-motivational cognitive processes that take place. Hence, following the Rubicon Model of Action Phases, a large number of previous studies have neglected an important component when it comes to understanding why individuals act (or do not act). Therefore, it makes sense to include volition as a theoretical construct when investigating exercise behavior. Even though the constructs of motivation and volition are related, they are indeed different complementary constructs. Both are important for behavior, and therefore, both need to be measured when attempting to predict specific actions, such as adherence to regular exercise.</p> <p>Furthermore, volition incorporates different aspects of the mental processes that facilitate initiation and maintaining of goal-oriented action and therefore goes beyond previously investigated concepts, such as self-confidence (McAuley, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref22">25</reflink>]) and locus of control (McCready & Long, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]). So even though specific aspects of volition, such as self-confidence, etc., may be assessed in other sport psychological measures, they are not constructed on the basis of volitional theory and are mostly one dimensional. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the construct of volition described in the Rubicon Model of Action Phases is not to be mistaken by the term used by Deci and Ryan to describe the need for autonomy (Deci & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Personality Systems Interaction Theory (PSIT; Kuhl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]) has been used as a theoretical framework for understanding volition (Kuhl, Kazén, & Koole, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]). It is a structural theory of volition that operates with four core macrosystems of human personality functioning, namely, Extension Memory, Intention Memory (IM), Intuitive Behavior Control, and Object Recognition (OR). Included in the theory are also positive and negative affect together with inhibition of these two. The PSIT assumes a number of facilitating and inhibiting relationships between the four macrosystems and the four mechanisms of affect, and these form the theoretical basis for predicting volitional processing and behavior in the individual. Kuhl ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref27">21</reflink>]) described eight phases of the motivation–self-regulation cycle and how the macro-systems and mechanisms of affect function together to go through these eight phases. For an extensive description of the PSI theory and its application, see Kuhl ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]) and Kuhl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>The PSIT has offered explanations for behaviors in several different contexts, such as applied psychology (e.g., Kuhl et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref30">23</reflink>]) and elite sport (e.g., Moesch, Hauge, Wikman, & Elbe, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>]). It therefore seems that the concept of volition is a viable addition to motivational investigations of human behavior.</p> <p>The PSIT has been used in other studies as a theoretical framework for the development of questionnaires measuring volition and for constructing questionnaires that measure volition (Forstmeier & Rüddel, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref32">10</reflink>]; Kuhl & Fuhrmann, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref33">22</reflink>]). A first questionnaire measuring volitional skills (Volitional Competence Inventory [VCI]) was developed by Kuhl and Fuhrmann ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref34">22</reflink>]). The questionnaire aims at measuring theoretical separable specific subcomponents of the main volitional components, self-control and self-regulation. Examples of these subcomponents are initiating a goal and controlling unwanted impulses. The questionnaire consists of 18 scales which are divided into the categories volitional competencies and inhibitions. When the focus is on predicting current and future exercise behavior, the measurement instrument should be as domain-specific as possible. The superiority of domain-specific over general instruments for predicting behavior has been demonstrated in numerous (sport) psychological studies (e.g., Elbe & Wenhold, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Kellmann & Beckmann, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]). The only questionnaire that measures sport-specific volition was developed by Wenhold, Elbe, and Beckmann ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref37">38</reflink>]) for the elite sport context. This sport-specific Volitional Components Questionnaire (VCQ-sport), which is also theoretically based on the PSIT, consists of 60 items that assess 23 scales of volition in the elite sport context, which are categorized in four factors, namely <emph>Self Optimization, Lack of Activation, Loss of Focus</emph>, and <emph>Self Impediment</emph>. The questionnaire addresses volition in the training and competition contexts, which are situations that arise only for individuals who train and compete regularly, making the questionnaire specific for competitive athletes but not applicable for other populations.</p> <p>In total, it seems that volition is important for participation and performance in elite sports. However, volitional components present themselves in different ways in the elite sport context compared to the contexts of exercise activities undertaken for health and recreational purposes by the more general non-elite population. Understanding the mental processes of importance to the general population's involvement in exercise activities is important for public health-orientated sport and exercise psychology research and for physical activity promotion. There is no instrument for measuring volition in the non-elite sport and exercise context; hence there is a need for such an instrument. Using the PSIT as a theoretical framework of volition, the aim of this study was therefore to develop and validate a questionnaire that measures individuals' volition for exercise in non-elite contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-2">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0122101219-3">Item development</hd> <p>In a theoretical review of the concept of volition based on the Rubicon Model of Action Phases (Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]) and the PSIT (Kuhl, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]), and inspired by the scales of VCI and VCQ-sport as well as adapting them to the non-elite sport and exercise domain, 14 subcomponents were defined based on their relevance for the specific context under investigation. The subcomponents were <emph>self-determination, positive self-motivation, initiative, general self-confidence, focus on approval from others, coping with failure, rumination, negative emotionality, lack of energy, postponing training, avoiding effort, impulse control</emph>, <emph>volitional self-confidence,</emph> and <emph>lack of concentration</emph>. The second author operationalized the 14 subcomponents by formulating a pool of 63 items. These operationalizations were then evaluated and adjusted in three steps. First, two experts in both volition and in sport and exercise psychology evaluated the items' relevancy both for the theoretical concept of volition and for the exercise context. This was possible because both experts had expertise in the concept of volition, the context of exercise, and the connection of the two. Second, in order to evaluate the items' comprehensibility, the questions were distributed to a small sample of 14 individuals with various demographic backgrounds (age, gender, socioeconomic status, and experience with sport and exercise). These participants were asked for feedback regarding the wording and comprehensibility of the questions. Third, the list of items was reviewed by an expert in motivational and volitional psychology. Based on all three parts of this evaluation, the questions were reformulated, and 19 questions were removed due to their lack of relevance to the exercise context, their lack of relevance to the theory of volition, or their lack of comprehensibility. Each item is answered on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (<emph>completely false</emph>) to 4 (<emph>completely true</emph>). All items are assumed to have interval properties, implying that responses may be considered as ordinal (categorized) observations of continuous variables.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-4">Sampling and participants</hd> <p>The questionnaires were distributed in Danish to 836 bachelor's and master's students at the University of Copenhagen studying either biology, medicine, pharmaceutical sciences, nutrition, or sport sciences. Course leaders were contacted and asked for permission to distribute the questionnaire at the end of their lectures. The bachelor's and master's students had the possibility of either filling in a paper version of the questionnaire or responding electronically. The electronic questionnaire was programmed in SurveyXact. Both questionnaires filled in on paper and electronically were returned immediately upon completion, making the two procedures almost identical. Due to the fact that the questionnaires were distributed, filled in, and returned during lectures, the initial response rate was 100%. Fifty-one questionnaires had one or more items missing and were therefore excluded from the factor analysis, making the final response rate 93.9% (<emph>N</emph> = 785/836).</p> <p>Of the 785 participants included in the analysis, 68% were women. The participants' ages ranged from 19 to 57 years (mean = 23, <emph>SD</emph> = 2.85), and the majority (80.8%) reported that they currently participated in exercise activities of some sort. The participants' weekly mean hours of exercise activities were 3.09 (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.85), and they had been regularly physically active for 14.84 (<emph>SD</emph> = 5.39) years on average. When asked to report which exercise activity had been their primary in their life, 28.2% reported an organized team sport, 59.0% reported an organized individual activity, and 12.7% reported a self-organized exercise activity. With regards to level, 64.5% of the participants reported that they participated in sport or exercise activities on a local level, 5.5% on a regional level, 6.9% on a national level, and 2.7% on an international level. Finally, 20.2% did not participate in sport or exercise at the moment.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-5">Instrument</hd> <p>The instrument consisted of three parts, namely biographical questions as well as measurements of volition and motivation. Fourteen questions requested demographic and exercise participation information, such as gender, weekly exercise participation, exercise activities, years of exercise participation, level of sport participation, and highest level of sport participation.</p> <p>Weekly exercise participation was measured with the question, "How often do you participate in exercise activities?" Exercise activities were defined as all physical activities where you need to change clothes to participate. An example was provided: "Cycling to and from work is not considered an exercise activity, but going for a jog is". Participants could check one of the following responses: less than once a week, one time per week, two times per week, three times per week, four times per week, five times per week, or six or more times per week.</p> <p>A Danish version of the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]) was used to measure motivation. The Danish version of the SMS (Wikman, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]) was developed prior to this study for purposes of another study (Wikman et al., manuscript submitted for publication). It was translated to Danish using the translation and back-translation method (Brislin, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]) as well as being context translated to the exercise context by two sport and exercise experts. The SMS measures intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation using a Likert scale answering format from 0 (<emph>does not correspond at all</emph>) to 6 (<emph>corresponds exactly</emph>).</p> <p>Last, the 44-item Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ) was included.</p> <p>Filling in the questionnaires was completely voluntary and anonymous. Participants could resign from participation at any time.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-6">Sample splitting</hd> <p>In order to cross-validate the VEQ, the total sample of questionnaires was randomly split in half. One half, the calibration sample (<emph>N</emph> = 392), was used to identify a factor structure through explorative factor analysis, whereas the other half, the validation sample (<emph>N</emph> = 393), was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the fit of the identified factor structure.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-7">Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)</hd> <p>The development of the factor model, the assessment of the model fit, and the reporting of the results are in accordance with the recommendations of Gunnell, Gareau & Gaudreau ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]). Factor analysis was used to explore the relationship between responses to different test items. The goal was to retain a subsample of the 44 items of the questionnaire that could be described by a factor model in which each item loaded on a unique latent variable. The sums of items allocated to each factor may then be regarded as instruments for measuring different aspects of exercise volition, given that the partition of items allows an interpretation consistent with the Rubicon Model of Action Phases and the PSIT.</p> <p>Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted in SPSS 22.0. Maximum likelihood estimation was used as the extraction method, and a direct oblique rotation was used. If multiple factors were found, we hypothesized that they would be correlated.</p> <p>The EFA was used to guide the retention and removal of items in the development of the VEQ. In order to reach a factor solution, Kaiser's criterion (eigenvalues ≥ 1), a scree plot, and the interpretability of obtained factor solutions were considered. Items were removed sequentially according to the value of the primary factor loading until all items loaded.4 or higher on the primary factor and less than.2 on any other factor. The sampling adequacy was evaluated by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett's test of sphericity. An acceptable KMO is above.5 and is considered good above.7 (Kaiser, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref44">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>As part of the exploratory part of the model development, model fit indices were calculated on the calibration sample in AMOS 22.0. The model fit criteria is described in the section on CFA. This was done for the purpose of post-hoc fitting. Post-hoc fitting based on removal of items with numerically large standardized residuals was used to improve the model fit. Values either approaching or exceeding the suggested cut-off point of > |2.58| (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>]) were considered and removed if their theoretical interpretability was ambiguous or vague.</p> <p>Finally, it was assessed whether the factor structure, after items had been removed in the EFA, still was a valid and covering representation of the construct of volition as described by the Rubicon Model of Action Phases. Once again, an expert in both volition and in sport and exercise psychology evaluated the items and ensured that the remaining items adequately represented the construct of volition.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-8">CFAs</hd> <p>Construct validity of the factor model identified by EFA was examined using the independent validation sample. The hypothesized factor model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method. The model fit was evaluated with Chi-square statistics, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). We used the following criteria for an acceptable model fit: Chi-square/df < 5.00, CFI >.95, TLI >.95, RMSEA <.06 (Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). Inter-scale correlations were allowed between all pairs of factors. The model fitting was performed in AMOS 22 as well as in R. In AMOS, we used a classical approach by modelling item responses by a multivariate normal distribution. This is often regarded as a reasonable procedure for doing CFA on Likert-type items, but it ignores the ordinal nature of the data. We therefore also confirmed the hypothesized factor model by considering a model for ordinal responses using the lavaan R-package (Rosseel, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]). Here, observed responses were modeled as discretized observations of latent continuous variables described by a factor model where thresholds reflecting the discretization procedure are estimated as part of the estimation procedure.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-9">Validation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0122101219-10">Reliability</hd> <p>Various measures of internal consistency were investigated for each scale. We computed the classical Cronbach's alpha, an ordinal version of Cronbach's alpha based on polychoric correlations suitable for items on a Likert-type scale (Gadermann, Guhn, & Zumbo, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]), as well as different versions of the omega reliability measure (McDonald, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref49">27</reflink>]; Raykov, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref50">34</reflink>]). We finally computed Cronbach's alpha with each item removed in order to identify items that would improve the internal consistency if removed from the questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-11">Convergent validity</hd> <p>To assess the convergent validity of the VEQ, each of the scales' predictive powers was explored by conducting six regression analyses with self-reported hours of weekly participation in exercise as the outcome. The connection between volition and persistency with an activity has previously been shown in other areas, such as applied psychology (e.g., Kuhl et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]) and elite sport (e.g., Moesch et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-12">Incremental validity</hd> <p>To provide added validity evidence, we examined the degree to which volition in exercise added incremental variance in the prediction of participation in exercise activity above and beyond the variance accounted for by the well-established motivational predictors: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation (EM) and amotivation (AM; Teixeira et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>])</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0122101219-14">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>All response categories 0 to 3 were observed for all items, but responses were skewed toward the edge categories for some items. For Item 21, response 0 was observed for 66.5% of the subjects, while 62.3% of the respondents provided the answer 3 to Item 1. Mean item scores ranged from.44 for Item 21 to 2.57 for Item 1. Item 1 and Item 21 were formulated as follows: VEQ 1: "When I participate in exercise, I do it because I want to." VEQ 21: "I wait to embark on my exercise activity until there is no way around it." For further information on responses to individual items, see the Appendix.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-15">EFA</hd> <p>Explorative factor analysis was carried out on data from the 392 questionnaires included in the calibration sample. This resulted in six factors composed of 22 items, and 22 items were removed. The eigenvalues for the six factors were 7.20, 1.97, 1.66, 1.43, 1.38 and 1.05. In total, the six factors explained 66.80% of the variance.</p> <p>This model was then fitted in AMOS 22.0 on the calibration sample. The Chi-square value (χ<sups>2</sups> =<bold> </bold>399.3), the CFI (CFI = .94), and the TLI (TLI = .93) all met the criteria for an acceptable model fit. The RMSEA was also below the suggested criteria for acceptable model fit (RMSEA = .052, 90%CI = .045–.059; Hu & Bentler, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>]). However, these values did not meet the criteria of a good model fit, which was expected to be needed in order to reach an acceptable model fit on the validation sample. Inspection of the standardized residuals (SRs) was then conducted, and four items were removed as a result of problematic high covariances and poor interpretability (Byrne, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>]). These changes resulted in a model fit that met the criteria for a good fit on the calibration sample (CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .044, 90% confidence intervals [CI] = .034–.054, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] = .045). The KMO was.87 and met the criteria for good sampling adequacy; additionally, the Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (<emph>p <</emph> 0.001). The final model and the loading of each item are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1. EFA loadings, Cronbach's alpha values of factor, Cronbach's alpha values of factor if item is deleted, and descriptive statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Calibration sample</td><td>Validation sample</td></tr><tr><td>Factor/Item</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>α</td><td>Mean</td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>1. Volitional Inhibition—Reasons</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>80</bold></td><td><bold>1.27</bold></td><td><bold>0.92</bold></td></tr><tr><td>38. I think a lot about my reason for participating in my exercise activity</td><td>1.00</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.07</td><td>−.07</td><td>.04</td><td>−.04</td><td>N.A.</td><td>1.28</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>17. During my exercise activity I often focus on my reason for participating</td><td>0.59</td><td>.02</td><td>.07</td><td>.03</td><td>−.03</td><td>.01</td><td>N.A.</td><td>1.27</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td><bold>2. Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training*</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>84</bold></td><td><bold>0.53</bold></td><td><bold>0.60</bold></td></tr><tr><td>42. I wait until the last minute before I begin my exercise activity</td><td>0.04</td><td>.90</td><td>−.07</td><td>.02</td><td>.03</td><td>.07</td><td>.78</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>21. I wait to embark on my exercise activity until there is no way around it</td><td>−0.01</td><td>.90</td><td>−.05</td><td>.05</td><td>.06</td><td>.01</td><td>.76</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>32. I often experience that I really need to pull myself together to participate in my exercise activity</td><td>0.06</td><td>.74</td><td>.04</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.01</td><td>.03</td><td>.82</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>8. I only begin my exercise activity when I am pressured to it</td><td>0.00</td><td>.71</td><td>.01</td><td>−.03</td><td>−.02</td><td>.04</td><td>.82</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td><bold>3. Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>84</bold></td><td><bold>0.69</bold></td><td><bold>0.63</bold></td></tr><tr><td>28. During my exercise activity, I find it difficult to concentrate because my thoughts drift to other things than the activity itself</td><td>0.00</td><td>.09</td><td>.85</td><td>.01</td><td>.03</td><td>.02</td><td>.75</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.70</td></tr><tr><td>23. During my exercise activity, I am disturbed by thoughts that are not related to the activity itself</td><td>0.03</td><td>−.02</td><td>.83</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.01</td><td>.02</td><td>.76</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>11. During my exercise activity, I often find it difficult to concentrate because I start thinking of things not connected to the activity itself</td><td>0.02</td><td>−.03</td><td>.70</td><td>−.01</td><td>.03</td><td>−.02</td><td>.83</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td><bold>4. Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>82</bold></td><td><bold>2.25</bold></td><td><bold>0.64</bold></td></tr><tr><td>16. I am convinced that I am able to carry out strenuous exercise activities</td><td>−0.04</td><td>.00</td><td>−.02</td><td>.88</td><td>.03</td><td>−.05</td><td>.67</td><td>2.16</td><td>0.83</td></tr><tr><td>27. I believe that my will is strong enough to carry out strenuous exercise activities</td><td>−0.01</td><td>−.12</td><td>−.02</td><td>.67</td><td>.04</td><td>.02</td><td>.74</td><td>2.36</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>15 I believe in my own ability to do well in my exercise activity</td><td>−0.01</td><td>−.02</td><td>−.06</td><td>.62</td><td>−.10</td><td>.13</td><td>.81</td><td>2.22</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td><bold>5. Volitional Inhibition—Approval from Others</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>64</bold></td><td><bold>1.30</bold></td><td><bold>0.71</bold></td></tr><tr><td>30. I am afraid of what others think of me if I do not perform as expected in my exercise activity</td><td>0.04</td><td>.08</td><td>.06</td><td>−.04</td><td>.72</td><td>−.19</td><td>.52</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>5. I feel I have to meet others' expectations during my exercise activity</td><td>−0.04</td><td>.02</td><td>.03</td><td>.07</td><td>.62</td><td>−.06</td><td>.40</td><td>1.32</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>19. I adapt to others during my exercise activity</td><td>0.01</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.04</td><td>.45</td><td>.11</td><td>.66</td><td>1.55</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td><bold>6. Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure</bold></td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>.<bold>71</bold></td><td><bold>1.98</bold></td><td><bold>0.54</bold></td></tr><tr><td>18. Even though my exercise activity is not going well, it is easy for me to get back on track</td><td>−0.07</td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.09</td><td>−.04</td><td>.72</td><td>.60</td><td>2.10</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td>29. If I make a mistake during my exercise activity, I am quick to improve my effort</td><td>0.01</td><td>.00</td><td>−.05</td><td>.15</td><td>.11</td><td>.64</td><td>.63</td><td>1.96</td><td>0.65</td></tr><tr><td>40. When I make a mistake during my exercise activity, I quickly move on</td><td>0.05</td><td>−.04</td><td>−.01</td><td>.20</td><td>−.12</td><td>.57</td><td>.63</td><td>1.90</td><td>0.71</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>. *Items 34, 12, 24, and 44 were removed as a result of high residual covariances.</item> <item>5 Primary loading</item> </ulist> <p>The six remaining factors were deemed to be a valid and exhaustive representation of the concept of volition. Factor 1, "Volitional Inhibition—Reasons," is situated in the both the pre-actional and actional phase and represents the degree to which the individual has a tendency to contemplate the reasons for participating. Factor 2, "Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training," comes into play during the transition from the pre-actional to the actional phase, where the intention is transformed to action. Factor 3, "Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts," is relevant during the actional phase in situations in which the individual is in danger of being distracted during the activity. Factor 4, "Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence," relates to the pre-actional phase where the individual contemplates his/her abilities compared to the challenge at hand to decide the best course of action and the investment of energy to succeed. Factor 5, "Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others," entails to what extent the individual needs approval from others during the activity, i.e., in the actional phase. Factor 6, "Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure," is relevant in the actional phase when the individual needs to cope with an unsuccessful action during the activity. All in all, the six factors sufficiently cover both volitional phases, the pre-actional and actional phases, as outlined in the Rubicon Model of Action Phases. It was therefore decided to proceed with the CFA.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-16">CFA</hd> <p>The six-factor model found via the EFA procedures was confirmed using CFA. Results were very similar for the classical approach and for the modern version regarding item responses as discretized values of a classical factor model. For the classical factor model, assuming multivariate normal responses model fit indices provided an acceptable model fit (χ<sups>2</sups> /df = 250.1/121 = 2.1, <emph>p < </emph>.001, CFI = .95, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = .052, 90%CI = .043–.061, SRMR = .037). The maximum likelihood estimates for the factor model were out of range due to a negative measurement error for item VEQ-38, implying that the solution was inadmissible. However, the estimated variance was not significantly different from zero, suggesting that this may be due to sampling fluctuations and not misspecification of the model. Standardized factor loadings and covariances for the factor model presented in Figure 2 were obtained from AMOS by fixating the error variance on Item 38. We emphasize that the estimated factor loadings were not very sensitive to the exact value used (here.02) and that the model fit indices did not change by imposing this constraint up to the precision reported above. Standardized factor loadings and covariances for the classical factor model are presented in Figure 2.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Standardized factor loadings and covariances of the final model.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-17">Internal consistency and correlations</hd> <p>As shown in Table 1, five of the six factors showed acceptable Cronbach's alpha values ranging from.71 to.84. However, the Cronbach's alpha value of Factor 5 was.63, below the cut-off point for an acceptable value of.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]). Only one item would improve Cronbach's alpha if deleted. Deleting Item 19 would improve the factor's Cronbach's alpha value by.02. The ordinal reliability was slightly higher, ranging from.69 on factor 5 to.9 on Factors 2 and 3. Reliability measured by the two versions of coefficient omega was comparable to Cronbach's alpha for all factors, except that coefficient omega was estimated to.88 for Factor 1.</p> <p>The inter-correlations between the VEQ factors are presented in Table 2. The strongest correlations (.30–.51) were observed between Factors 2, 3, 4, and 6 (<emph>p <</emph> .001). For Factor 5, low correlations with Factors 2, 3, and 6 (.11–.17) were observed (<emph>p <</emph> .05), and no correlation with Factors 1 and 4 was observed. For Factor 1, moderate to low correlations (−.07–.28) with Factors 2, 3, 4, and 6 were observed (<emph>p <</emph> .05).</p> <p>Table 2. Factor inter-correlations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Factors</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Volitional Inhibition—Reasons</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>2. Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training</td><td>.28**</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>3. Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts</td><td>.18*</td><td>.43**</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>4. Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence</td><td>−.12**</td><td>−.51**</td><td>−.34**</td><td>—</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>5. Volitional Inhibition—Approval from Others</td><td>.06</td><td>.11**</td><td>.12**</td><td>−.06</td><td>—</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>6. Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure</td><td>−.07*</td><td>−.32**</td><td>−.30**</td><td>.47**</td><td>−.17**</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>. ** <emph>p</emph> < .01; * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-18">Convergent validity</hd> <p>Six regressions were conducted with each of the VEQ scales as predictors of hourly participation in exercise activities (see Table 3). The strongest predictors observed were Factors 2 and 4 (<emph>p <</emph> .001). They explained 20% and 17% of the variance, respectively, and showed high predictive power (B = −1.34; B = 1.20). Factors 3 and 6 were also significant predictors of exercise (<emph>p</emph> = .001; <emph>p</emph> = .006) with a low impact (B = –.36; B = .35) and explained 1% and 2% of the variance, respectively.</p> <p>Table 3. Regressions with hourly participation in exercise per week as outcome.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>VEQ scales</td><td>p</td><td>B</td><td>B CI low</td><td>B CI high</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Volitional Inhibition—Reasons</td><td>.065</td><td>−0.14</td><td>−0.29</td><td>0.01</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training</td><td><.001</td><td>−1.34</td><td>−1.60</td><td>−1.20</td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts</td><td>.001</td><td>−0.36</td><td>−0.57</td><td>−0.16</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence</td><td><.001</td><td>1.20</td><td>1.01</td><td>1.39</td><td>.17</td></tr><tr><td>Volitional Inhibition—Approval from Others</td><td>.731</td><td>0.03</td><td>−0.15</td><td>0.22</td><td><.01</td></tr><tr><td>Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure</td><td>.006</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.59</td><td>.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0122101219-19">Incremental validity</hd> <p>A regression analysis was conducted with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation as predictors of hours of exercise per week in step 1. The VEQ scales were then added as predictors in step 2. The VEQ scales were found to add 10.7% of unique explained variance to the model (see Table 4).</p> <p>Table 4. Regression predicting participation in exercise in hours per week.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Step</td><td>Variables added</td><td>R</td><td>R<sup>2</sup></td><td>ΔR<sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>IM, EM, AM</td><td>.481</td><td>.232</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>All six VEQ scales individually</td><td>.582</td><td>.339</td><td>.107</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0122101219-20">Discussion</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to develop and perform the initial validation of a questionnaire measuring volitional components in the context of exercise. Via EFA on a calibration sample, a six-factor model containing 18 items resulted in an acceptable fit. The six factors were Volitional Inhibition—Reasons, Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training, Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts, Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence, Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others, and Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure.</p> <p>The six factors obtained by the factor analysis were viewed within the PSIT framework and the Rubicon Model of Action Phases to understand and explain the volitional mechanisms behind them. Factor 1, "Volitional Inhibition—Reasons," refers to what extent the individual deliberates on the reasons for participating in the activity. Reflecting on one's reasons to participate is generally positive for one's engaging in exercise. However, if this is done too often, it will result in a high activation of Intention Memory (IM) followed by an inhibition of Intuitive Behavior Control (IBC), meaning that the individual will struggle with engaging in the activity to a full extent.</p> <p>Factor 2, "Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training," refers to the respondent's lack of energy to engage actively in the activity, i.e., the tendency to procrastinate in relation with the activity. The mechanism behind the factor in PSIT is that the respondent fails to self-activate positive affect and connect IM to IBC, which underlies procrastination.</p> <p>Factor 3, "Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts," refers to the extent to which the respondent can concentrate by shutting out unwanted thoughts and emotions. In the PSI model, the "Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts" factor measures the inability to reach a high activation of EM and low activation of OR. When an individual has a high negative affect, it leads to an increase in the activation of the OR, which leads to a loss of focus on activity at hand.</p> <p>Factor 4, "Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence," refers to what extent the respondent feels that he or she can succeed in the exercise context. To individually assess one's own Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence, one must activate EM in order to implicitly take into consideration the context. The activation of EM requires low negative affect. If "Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence" is too low, some intentions may not be deemed attainable and may be given up before they reach the IM and can be carried out.</p> <p>Factor 5, "Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others," is characterized as being susceptible to other people's opinions in conjunction with exercising. The intention to socialize and get along with peers is generally a healthy intention. However, when "Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others" is too high, the respondent experiences a conflict of intentions, which leads to a low activation of the IBC because it is used for attaining the approval of others instead of engaging in the exercise activity.</p> <p>Factor 6, "Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure," entails the extent to which the respondent can cope with and learn from an experience of failure. The experience of failure is discovered by OR when a discrepancy between extended expectations in EM and actual results exists. This is followed by higher negative affect, which further activates OR and inhibits EM. The "Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure" factor involves both the inhibition of OR through down-regulation of negative affect and the ability to internalize the failures in EM to form action alternatives.</p> <p>To sum up, the six factors of the VEQ are in accordance with both the Rubicon Model of Action Phases and the PSIT. Two of the factors, Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence and Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure, can be seen as aspects of positive psychological characteristics that facilitate the volitional phases, whereas the factors Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training and Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts can be seen as negative psychological characteristics that inhibit the individual's efficiency in the volitional phases. The factors Volitional Inhibition—Reasons and Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others are different aspects of volition with a more reflective character that have implications for self-regulation. This was further confirmed by the inter-factor correlations, which revealed that four of the factors had moderate to high correlations in the expected directions. Factor 4, Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence, and Factor 6, Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure, correlated positively with each other and correlated negatively with Factor 2, Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training, and Factor 3, Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts, which also correlated positively with each other. The direction of these correlations clearly indicates that these four factors reflect two positive and two negative aspects of volitional skills. Factor 1, Volitional Inhibition—Reasons, and Factor 5, Volitional Inhibition—Approval From Others, displayed low correlations to the other factors, thus illustrating their more reflective (i.e. different) self-regulatory characteristics.</p> <p>It therefore can be concluded that a sound theoretical explanation for the six factors determined by EFA can be based on the PSIT. This six-factor solution was then confirmed using CFA on a validation sample, which showed an acceptable model fit.</p> <p>The reliability of five of the six scales can be deemed satisfactory. The fifth factor provided the lowest internal consistency (original alpha = .64, ordinal alpha = .68) and presented the only item that, if deleted, would improve its factor's Cronbach's alpha value (by.02). The reliability "issues" of the fifth factor were not considered too problematic, as both alphas were close to the cutoff of.7, and the improvement of the value if Item 19 was deleted was only.02. Additionally, Cronbach's alpha is downwardly biased and will tend to underestimate Cronbach's alpha in scales with few items (Streiner, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref57">36</reflink>]). Based on these arguments and given that the factor consisted of only three items, it was decided to retain the item. The Cronbach's alpha of the fifth factor was considered adequate.</p> <p>With regard to convergent validity, it seems that the positive volitional characteristics (Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure and Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence) were related to higher participation, while the negative volitional characteristics (Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts and Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training) were related to lower participation. Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training, which explained 20% of the variance of participating in exercise, seems to be of particular importance. Low values in Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training have also been shown to be important for making it to the elite level in sports (Moesch et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref58">28</reflink>]). Furthermore, the scale Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence explained 17% of the variance. In total, this highlights the convergent validity of the VEQ and underlines the importance of measuring volitional characteristics when trying to predict participation in exercise. There were, however, also weaknesses with regards to convergent validity. The constructs Volitional Facilitation—Coping with Failure and Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts explained only 1% and 2% of the variance, and the subscale Volitional Inhibition—Reasons had a near-significant impact on exercise participation, whereas Volitional Inhibition—Approval from others did not significantly predict exercise involvement.</p> <p>Additionally, the VEQ scales showed incremental validity, as it was found that they add 10.7% of explained variance in sports and exercise activity above and beyond the well-established predictors IM, EM, and AM. This not only suggests that the scales are unique, valuable predictors but also that they offer additional explanatory value in the context of exercise.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-21">Limitations</hd> <p>There are limitations to this study that need to be addressed. Study participants were predominantly young, well-educated individuals with relatively high exercise participation levels, implying that mean scale scores may differ compared to other populations. This could explain the relatively high mean score in Volitional Facilitation—Self-Confidence as well as low scores in Volitional Inhibition—Postponing Training and Volitional Inhibition—Unrelated Thoughts. Also, the factor structure may differ across groups (configural invariance), and it may be beneficial for future research to further confirm the factor structure.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this development and initial validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ), six volitional factors based on 18 items of relevance to sports and exercise participation were identified and validated. These factors showed acceptable model fit, internal consistency, convergent validity, and the ability to explain differences in sports and exercise participation beyond those explained by the motivational scales of SMS. This instrument has shown the potential to be a useful and valid tool that can be applied to investigate the role of volition in facilitating exercise participation. Validation in other samples is needed, however.</p> <hd id="AN0122101219-23">Funding</hd> <p>The study is supported by the research program "Physical activity and nutrition for improvement of health," funded by the University of Copenhagen Excellence Programme for Interdisciplinary Research.</p> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher's website.</p> <ref id="AN0122101219-24"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at <ulink href="http://www.tandfonline.com/hmpe">www.tandfonline.com/hmpe</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0122101219-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (1985). From intention to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref20" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Beckmann, J., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Deliberative versus implemental states of mind: The issue of impartiality in predecisional and postdecisional information processing. Social Cognition, 5(3), 259–279. doi:10.1521/soco.1987.5.3.259</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Biddle, S., Mutrie, N., Mutrie, P. N., & Gorely, T. (2015). Psychology of physical activity: Determinants, well-being and interventions. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. doi:10.1177/135910457000100301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref45" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17–32. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref10" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Ekkekakis, P., & Zenko, Z. (2016). Escape from cognitivism: Exercise as hedonic experience. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research: From theory to practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref35" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Elbe, A.-M., & Wenhold, F. (2005). Cross-Cultural test control criteria for the AMS-Sport. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 163–178. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2005.9671765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forstmeier, S., & Rüddel, H. (2008). Measuring volitional competences: Psychometric properties of a short form of the Volitional Components Questionnaire (VCQ) in a clinical sample. The Open Psychology Journal, 1, 66–77. doi:10.2174/1874350100801010066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer, P. M. (2012). Mindset theory of action phases. In P. Van Lange & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 526–545). London, UK: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Steller, B. (1990). Deliberative and implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1119–1127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunnell, K. E., Gareau, A., & Gaudreau, P. (2016). Introduction to factor analysis and structural equation modelling. In N. Ntoumanis, & N. D. Myers (Eds.), An Introduction to Intermediate and Advanced Statistical Analyses for Sport and Exercise Scientists (pp. 79–99). Chichester, UK: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckhausen, H., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1987). Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion, 11(2), 101–120. doi:10.1007/BF00992338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. doi:10.1007/BF02291575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellmann, M., & Beckmann, J. (2003). Research and intervention in sport psychology: New perspectives on an inherent conflict. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 13–26. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J. (1992). Motivation and volition. In G. D´Ydewall, P. Eelen, & P. Bertelsen (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science (Vol. 2, pp. 311–340). Brussels, Belgium: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J. (2000). The volitional basis of Personality Systems Interaction Theory: Applications in learning and treatment contexts. International Journal of Educational Research, 33, 665–703. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00045-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self-regulation and self-control: The volitional components inventory. In J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span (pp. 15–49). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, J., Kazén, M., & Koole, S. L. (2006). Putting self-regulation theory into practice: A user's manual. Applied Psychology, 55(3), 408–418. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00260.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus, B. H., Eaton, C. A., Rossi, J. S., & Harlow, L. L. (1994). Self-efficacy, decision-making, and stages of change: An integrative model of physical exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(6), 489–508. doi:10.1111/jasp.1994.24.issue-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McAuley, E. (1991). Efficacy, attributional, and affective responses to exercise participation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 382–393. doi:10.1123/jsep.13.4.382</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCready, M. L., & Long, B. C. (1985). Locus of control, attitudes toward physical activity, and exercise adherence. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 346–359. doi:10.1123/jsp.7.4.346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moesch, K., Hauge, M.-L. T., Wikman, J. M., & Elbe, A.-M. (2013). Making it to the top in team sports: Start later, intensify, and be determined. Talent Development and Excellence, 5(2), 85–100.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualisation of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 745–752. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00107-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papaioannou, A., Bebetsos, E., Theodorakis, Y., Christodoulidis, T., & Kouli, O. (2006). Causal relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientations, perceived competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: A longitudinal study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(4), 367–382. doi:10.1080/02640410400022060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53. doi:10.1123/jsep.17.1.35</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change in smoking: Towards an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raykov, T. (2001). Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 54(2), 315–323. doi:10.1348/000711001159582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 9(1), 78–107. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wenhold, F., Elbe, A.-M., & Beckmann, J. (2009). Testgütekriterien des Fragebogens VKS zur Erfassung volitionaler Komponenten im Sport. Zeitschrift für Sportpsychologie, 16, 91–103. doi:10.1026/1612-5010.16.3.91</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikman, J. M. (2015). Sport Motivation Scale: Manual for the Danish version. Center for Team Sports and Health, Department of Human Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, University of Copenhage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wikman, J. M., Elsborg, P., Nielsen, G., Seidelin, K., Nyberg, M., Bangsbo, J., ... Elbe, A.-M. (unpublished manuscript). Are team sport games a more motivating type of exercise than individual exercise activities for middle-aged women? A comparison of the levels of motivation associated with participating in floorball and spinning.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By P. Elsborg; J. M. Wikman; G. Nielsen; A. Tolver and A.-M. Elbe</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref57"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1135504
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Initial Validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ)
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elsborg%2C+P%2E%22">Elsborg, P.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1770-2274">0000-0002-1770-2274</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wikman%2C+J%2E+M%2E%22">Wikman, J. M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5177-8002">0000-0002-5177-8002</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nielsen%2C+G%2E%22">Nielsen, G.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2854-7182">0000-0003-2854-7182</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tolver%2C+A%2E%22">Tolver, A.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1109-9889">0000-0003-1109-9889</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elbe%2C+A%2E-M%22">Elbe, A.-M</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8392-2451">0000-0002-8392-2451</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Measurement+in+Physical+Education+and+Exercise+Science%22"><i>Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science</i></searchLink>. 2017 21(2):57-68.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Power%22">Individual Power</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Exercise%22">Exercise</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Analysis%22">Factor Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Factor+Structure%22">Factor Structure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inhibition%22">Inhibition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Esteem%22">Self Esteem</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coping%22">Coping</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Failure%22">Failure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Denmark%22">Denmark</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1251436
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1091-367X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The present study describes the development and validation of an instrument to measure volition in the exercise context. Volition describes an individual's self-regulatory mental processes that are responsible for taking and maintaining a desirable action (e.g., exercising regularly). The scale structure was developed in an exploratory factor analysis which resulted in a reliable structure of the following six factors: "Volitional Inhibition--Reasons," "Volitional Inhibition--Postponing Training," "Volitional Facilitation--Self-Confidence," "Volitional Inhibition--Unrelated Thoughts," "Volitional Inhibition--Approval From Others," and "Volitional Facilitation--Coping with Failure." A sound theoretical explanation for these six factors is based on the Personal System Interaction Theory. This six-factor structure was also confirmed in a new sample in a confirmatory factor analysis, delivering an 18-item questionnaire with strong model fit and good internal consistency. In addition, the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire showed convergent validity because it was able to predict exercise participation. It showed incremental validity by explaining additional variance to the Sport Motivation Scale's well-established predictors of exercise participation.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 40
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1135504
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1135504
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1251436
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 57
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Individual Power
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Exercise
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Factor Structure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inhibition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Esteem
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coping
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Failure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Denmark
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Initial Validation of the Volition in Exercise Questionnaire (VEQ)
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elsborg, P.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wikman, J. M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nielsen, G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tolver, A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elbe, A.-M
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1091-367X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1