Limits...
Children's active commuting to school: an interplay of self-efficacy, social economic disadvantage, and environmental characteristics.

Lu W, McKyer EL, Lee C, Ory MG, Goodson P, Wang S - Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (2015)

Bottom Line: However, little research has been carried out into investigating the effect of self-efficacy on ACS.Participants' social economic disadvantage (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = -0.49, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = -0.17, p = 0.029) all had statistically significant direct effects on children's ACS.Social disadvantage and environmental constraints also need to be addressed for effective interventions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 20 Cooper Square, Room 240, New York, 10003, USA. w.lu@nyu.edu.

ABSTRACT

Background: Active commuting to school (ACS) can promote children's physical activity and may help prevent childhood obesity. Previous researchers in various disciplines, e.g., health, urban planning, and transportation, have identified various predictors of ACS. However, little research has been carried out into investigating the effect of self-efficacy on ACS. The purpose of this study is to investigate the roles of children's and parents' self-efficacy in children's ACS, controlling for sociodemographic and objective environmental characteristics.

Methods: This study is part of the Texas Childhood Obesity Prevention Policy Evaluation (T-COPPE) project, which includes data from 857 parent/child pairs from 74 schools who lived within two miles of school in Texas. Measures included children's usual modes of commuting to school, participants' sociodemographics, perceived self-efficacy toward ACS, sources of children's self-efficacy, school settings, and objective environmental constraints. Multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized pathways using Mplus 7.0.

Results: Around 18% of the children were active commuters. Two sources of children's self-efficacy were identified, i.e., emotional states (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) and social modeling (β = 0.28, p < 0.01). Compared with children's self-efficacy (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), parents' self-efficacy (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) had a stronger influence on children's ACS. Participants' social economic disadvantage (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = -0.49, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = -0.17, p = 0.029) all had statistically significant direct effects on children's ACS.

Conclusions: Future initiatives should consider both parents' and children's self-efficacy in developing strategies for promoting children's ACS. Social disadvantage and environmental constraints also need to be addressed for effective interventions. The work reported here provides support for the continuing exploration of the role of self-efficacy in children's ACS.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Structural model 2 for children’s self-efficacyvs.parents’ self-efficacy (N = 857). Note: Parameter estimates are standardized regression weights. A regression weight with a positive sign means the expected value of the dependent variable (i.e., child behavior of ACS) is increased when the predictor value increases. Model Fit Statistics: CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.02; WRMR = .98. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.005, ****p ≤ 0.001, n.s. = not significant.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4352543&req=5

Fig3: Structural model 2 for children’s self-efficacyvs.parents’ self-efficacy (N = 857). Note: Parameter estimates are standardized regression weights. A regression weight with a positive sign means the expected value of the dependent variable (i.e., child behavior of ACS) is increased when the predictor value increases. Model Fit Statistics: CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.02; WRMR = .98. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.005, ****p ≤ 0.001, n.s. = not significant.

Mentions: Figure 3 depicts the final structural model, which demonstrated good fit to the data (CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.02, WRMR = 0.98). Overall, the model accounted for 82.2% of the variance in the final outcome variable ACS. As we hypothesized, compared with children’s self-efficacy (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), parents’ self-efficacy (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) had a stronger influence on children’s active commuting behavior. There was also a significant correlation between children’s self-efficacy and parents’ self-efficacy (β = 0.37, p < 0.001). In agreement with Structural Model 1, all of the three control variables, i.e., social economic disadvantage (β = 0.67, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = −0.46, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = −0.20, p < 0.001), had statistically significant direct effects on children’s self-efficacy. The directions of the relationships between the control variables and ACS were the same with those in Structural Model 1.Figure 3


Children's active commuting to school: an interplay of self-efficacy, social economic disadvantage, and environmental characteristics.

Lu W, McKyer EL, Lee C, Ory MG, Goodson P, Wang S - Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act (2015)

Structural model 2 for children’s self-efficacyvs.parents’ self-efficacy (N = 857). Note: Parameter estimates are standardized regression weights. A regression weight with a positive sign means the expected value of the dependent variable (i.e., child behavior of ACS) is increased when the predictor value increases. Model Fit Statistics: CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.02; WRMR = .98. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.005, ****p ≤ 0.001, n.s. = not significant.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4352543&req=5

Fig3: Structural model 2 for children’s self-efficacyvs.parents’ self-efficacy (N = 857). Note: Parameter estimates are standardized regression weights. A regression weight with a positive sign means the expected value of the dependent variable (i.e., child behavior of ACS) is increased when the predictor value increases. Model Fit Statistics: CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.995; RMSEA = 0.02; WRMR = .98. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.005, ****p ≤ 0.001, n.s. = not significant.
Mentions: Figure 3 depicts the final structural model, which demonstrated good fit to the data (CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.02, WRMR = 0.98). Overall, the model accounted for 82.2% of the variance in the final outcome variable ACS. As we hypothesized, compared with children’s self-efficacy (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), parents’ self-efficacy (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) had a stronger influence on children’s active commuting behavior. There was also a significant correlation between children’s self-efficacy and parents’ self-efficacy (β = 0.37, p < 0.001). In agreement with Structural Model 1, all of the three control variables, i.e., social economic disadvantage (β = 0.67, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = −0.46, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = −0.20, p < 0.001), had statistically significant direct effects on children’s self-efficacy. The directions of the relationships between the control variables and ACS were the same with those in Structural Model 1.Figure 3

Bottom Line: However, little research has been carried out into investigating the effect of self-efficacy on ACS.Participants' social economic disadvantage (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = -0.49, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = -0.17, p = 0.029) all had statistically significant direct effects on children's ACS.Social disadvantage and environmental constraints also need to be addressed for effective interventions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Silver School of Social Work, New York University, 20 Cooper Square, Room 240, New York, 10003, USA. w.lu@nyu.edu.

ABSTRACT

Background: Active commuting to school (ACS) can promote children's physical activity and may help prevent childhood obesity. Previous researchers in various disciplines, e.g., health, urban planning, and transportation, have identified various predictors of ACS. However, little research has been carried out into investigating the effect of self-efficacy on ACS. The purpose of this study is to investigate the roles of children's and parents' self-efficacy in children's ACS, controlling for sociodemographic and objective environmental characteristics.

Methods: This study is part of the Texas Childhood Obesity Prevention Policy Evaluation (T-COPPE) project, which includes data from 857 parent/child pairs from 74 schools who lived within two miles of school in Texas. Measures included children's usual modes of commuting to school, participants' sociodemographics, perceived self-efficacy toward ACS, sources of children's self-efficacy, school settings, and objective environmental constraints. Multilevel structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized pathways using Mplus 7.0.

Results: Around 18% of the children were active commuters. Two sources of children's self-efficacy were identified, i.e., emotional states (β = 0.36, p < 0.001) and social modeling (β = 0.28, p < 0.01). Compared with children's self-efficacy (β = 0.16, p < 0.001), parents' self-efficacy (β = 0.63, p < 0.001) had a stronger influence on children's ACS. Participants' social economic disadvantage (β = 0.40, p < 0.001), environmental constraints (β = -0.49, p < 0.001), and school setting (β = -0.17, p = 0.029) all had statistically significant direct effects on children's ACS.

Conclusions: Future initiatives should consider both parents' and children's self-efficacy in developing strategies for promoting children's ACS. Social disadvantage and environmental constraints also need to be addressed for effective interventions. The work reported here provides support for the continuing exploration of the role of self-efficacy in children's ACS.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus