dc.contributor.author | Howlett, Neil | |
dc.contributor.author | Schulz, Joerg | |
dc.contributor.author | Trivedi, Daksha | |
dc.contributor.author | Troop, Nicholas | |
dc.contributor.author | Chater, Angel | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2020-05-17T00:10:27Z | |
dc.date.available | 2020-05-17T00:10:27Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-05-14 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Howlett , N , Schulz , J , Trivedi , D , Troop , N & Chater , A 2020 , ' Determinants of weekly sitting time: Construct validation of an initial COM-B model and comparison of its predictive validity with the Theory of Planned Behaviour ' , Psychology and Health . https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1763994 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0887-0446 | |
dc.identifier.other | ORCID: /0000-0002-6502-9969/work/74071586 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/22706 | |
dc.description | © 2020 Taylor & Francis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology & Health on 14 May 2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1763994. | |
dc.description.abstract | Objective: In relation to sitting behaviour, to investigate which theoretical domains best formed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation constructs of the COM-B, and compare the predictive validity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), taking habit strength into consideration. Design: Using a prospective design, 186 adults completed measures capturing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework for the three COM-B constructs, and habit strength, which were examined using a formative measurement model. Predictive validity was then compared to the TPB.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported sitting behaviour. Results: Self-monitoring (behavioural regulation domain) formed Capability; subjective norm (social influences domain) formed Opportunity; intention (intentions domain), positive affect (emotion domain), and perceived behavioural control (beliefs about capabilities domain), formed Motivation. The COM-B strongly predicted sitting behaviour (27% variance explained), with Capability, Opportunity, and habit strength as key drivers. The TPB explained a large amount of variance (23%) in sitting behaviour, with intention and habit strength as key drivers. Conclusions: The behavioural regulation domain of Capability, the social influences domain of Opportunity, and habit strength were important drivers of sitting behaviour, with comparable variance predicted in the COM-B and TPB. Future research should consider this approach to conceptualise the COM-B for specific populations and behaviours. | en |
dc.format.extent | 19 | |
dc.format.extent | 412215 | |
dc.language.iso | eng | |
dc.relation.ispartof | Psychology and Health | |
dc.title | Determinants of weekly sitting time: Construct validation of an initial COM-B model and comparison of its predictive validity with the Theory of Planned Behaviour | en |
dc.contributor.institution | Psychology | |
dc.contributor.institution | Department of Psychology and Sports Sciences | |
dc.contributor.institution | Centre for Research in Psychology and Sport Sciences | |
dc.contributor.institution | Behaviour Change in Health and Business | |
dc.contributor.institution | Weight and Obesity Research Group | |
dc.contributor.institution | School of Life and Medical Sciences | |
dc.contributor.institution | School of Health and Social Work | |
dc.contributor.institution | Patient Experience and Public Involvement | |
dc.contributor.institution | Evidence Based Practice | |
dc.contributor.institution | Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care | |
dc.contributor.institution | Psycho-haematology Research Unit | |
dc.contributor.institution | Health and Clinical Psychology Research Group | |
dc.contributor.institution | Department of Psychology, Sport and Geography | |
dc.description.status | Peer reviewed | |
dc.date.embargoedUntil | 2021-05-14 | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1080/08870446.2020.1763994 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | |
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |