IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0242069.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement properties of the German version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale for adults

Author

Listed:
  • Darko Jekauc
  • Carina Nigg
  • Claudio R Nigg
  • Markus Reichert
  • Janina Krell-Roesch
  • Doris Oriwol
  • Steffen Schmidt
  • Kathrin Wunsch
  • Alexander Woll

Abstract

The physical activity enjoyment scale (PACES) is a measurement instrument that is commonly used in monitoring and intervention research to assess how much people enjoy being physically active, as this has been related to physical activity adherence. However, while the measurement properties of PACES are well-researched in the English language, there is a gap of research in the German language, especially when looking at adults. Thus, the purpose of this work was to examine reliability, factorial validity, criterion-related validity, and measurement invariance across sex, age groups and time of the PACES for German-speaking adults. Data was obtained from the Motorik-Modul-Study (MoMo) in which 863 adults (53.5% female; mean age = 20.9 years) were examined. To investigate measurement invariance across age groups, data from 2,274 adolescents (50.5% female; mean age = 14.4 years) was obtained additionally. The study provided a nationwide representative sample for Germany. Results showed high internal consistency of PACES in adults (Cronbach’s α = .94). Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed the invariance of the measure across age groups, time, and sex. Criterion-related validity could be shown as the global factor significantly correlated with overall physical activity, physical activity in sports clubs, and leisure-time physical activity. The analyses of factorial structure indicated a method effect for positively and negatively worded items. Correlated uniqueness, latent method factor and a hybrid model were applied to analyze the method effect and results indicated that the method effect of positively worded items was predictive of physical activity independently of the global factor. Overall, it can be concluded that PACES is reliable, valid and invariant measure of physical activity enjoyment to be used in German-speaking adults. Further studies are warranted to examine the factorial structure of the PACES and the consequences of the method effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Darko Jekauc & Carina Nigg & Claudio R Nigg & Markus Reichert & Janina Krell-Roesch & Doris Oriwol & Steffen Schmidt & Kathrin Wunsch & Alexander Woll, 2020. "Measurement properties of the German version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale for adults," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242069
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242069
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0242069&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0242069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devereux-Fitzgerald, Angela & Powell, Rachael & Dewhurst, Anne & French, David P., 2016. "The acceptability of physical activity interventions to older adults: A systematic review and meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 14-23.
    2. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cheng Chen & Susanne Weyland & Julian Fritsch & Alexander Woll & Claudia Niessner & Alexander Burchartz & Steffen C. E. Schmidt & Darko Jekauc, 2021. "A Short Version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale: Development and Psychometric Properties," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, October.
    2. Julian Fritsch & Susanne Weyland & Katharina Feil & Alexander Burchartz & Steffen Schmidt & Alexander Woll & Ulrich Strauch & Benjamin Wienke & Darko Jekauc, 2022. "A Study on the Psychometric Properties of the Short Version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale in an Adult Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-11, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vicente Martínez-Tur & Vicente Peñarroja & Miguel A Serrano & Vanesa Hidalgo & Carolina Moliner & Alicia Salvador & Adrián Alacreu-Crespo & Esther Gracia & Agustín Molina, 2014. "Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Harrington, Jean & Morgan, Myfanwy, 2016. "Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 43-50.
    3. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    5. Hoffman, Geoffrey J. & Hays, Ron D. & Wallace, Steven P. & Shapiro, Martin F. & Ettner, Susan L., 2017. "Depressive symptomatology and fall risk among community-dwelling older adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 206-213.
    6. Gigi Foster, 2020. "The behavioural economics of government responses to COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S3), pages 11-43, December.
    7. Samahita, Margaret & Holm, Håkan J., 2020. "Mining for Mood Effect in the Field," Working Papers 2020:2, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    8. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    9. De Silva, Muthu & Rossi, Federica & Yip, Nick K.T. & Rosli, Ainurul, 2021. "Does affective evaluation matter for the success of university-industry collaborations? A sentiment analysis of university-industry collaborative project reports," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    10. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    11. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    12. Bachmann, Kremena & Meyer, Julia & Krauss, Annette, 2024. "Investment motives and performance expectations of impact investors," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    13. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    14. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    16. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Kathleen McColl & Marion Debin & Cecile Souty & Caroline Guerrisi & Clement Turbelin & Alessandra Falchi & Isabelle Bonmarin & Daniela Paolotti & Chinelo Obi & Jim Duggan & Yamir Moreno & Ania Wisniak, 2021. "Are People Optimistically Biased about the Risk of COVID-19 Infection? Lessons from the First Wave of the Pandemic in Europe," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, December.
    18. Robert J. Shiller, 2017. "Narrative Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 967-1004, April.
    19. van der Linden, Sander, 2014. "On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Mao, Wen, 2016. "Sometimes “Fee” Is Better Than “Free”: Token Promotional Pricing and Consumer Reactions to Price Promotion Offering Product Upgrades," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 173-184.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0242069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.