This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]

On: 19 December 2014, At: 17:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Adolescents‘ Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical

Activity Scale
a a a b c
John J. M. Dwyer , Tala Chulak , Scott Maitland , Kenneth R. Allison , Daria C. Lysy , Guy E. J.
c a
Faulkner & Judy Sheeshka
a
The Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition , University of Guelph
b
KR Allison Research Consulting , University of Toronto
c
The Physical Activity Research Program , University of Toronto
Published online: 26 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: John J. M. Dwyer , Tala Chulak , Scott Maitland , Kenneth R. Allison , Daria C. Lysy , Guy E. J. Faulkner & Judy
Sheeshka (2012) Adolescents‘ Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical Activity Scale, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
83:4, 513-521, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2012.10599140

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599140

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
 Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison,
Measurement
Lysy, Faulkner,
and and
Evaluation
Sheeshka

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

©2012 by the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 513–521

Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical

Activity Scale
John J. M. Dwyer, Tala Chulak, Scott Maitland, Kenneth R. Allison, Daria C. Lysy,
Guy E. J. Faulkner, and Judy Sheeshka

This paper describes a revised measure of self-efficacy to overcome barriers to moderate and vigorous physical activity in a sample of
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014

484 high school students in Toronto, Ontario. The students had a mean age of 15.3 years. Principal axis factoring with oblique
rotation yielded five factors: self-efficacy to overcome internal, harassment, physical environment, social environment, and responsi-
bilities barriers. Two problematic items were removed, which resulted in a 22-item measure. Subsequent analyses were conducted on
responses to this shortened measure. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the five-factor model and demonstrated age- and sex-
invariance. The subscales had good internal consistency reliability. Structural regressions demonstrated a strong relationship between
the resulting factors and a physical activity measure (energy expenditure), showing predictive validity.

Key words: factor analysis, validity, reliability & Irving, 2007; Grunbaum et al., 2002). Physical inactivity
during adolescence is a concern considering that physical

S trong et al. (2005) conducted an extensive review of

physical activity interventions among youth, which
supported the recommendation that youth engage in at
least 60 min or more of moderate-to-vigorous physical
activity daily to achieve desired health and behavioral
outcomes. However, some youth are not getting sufficient
physical activity. For example, according to the 2005
Canadian Community Health Survey, 27% of Canadian
youth ages 12–17 years were physically inactive as defined
by self-reported participation in leisure-time activities ac-
cumulatively equivalent to walking less than 30 min daily
(Gilmour, 2007). Studies among U.S. and Canadian ado-
lescents have indicated a steady decline in physical activity
from ages 14 through 18 years (Allison, Adlaf, Dwyer, Lysy,
Submitted: June 25, 2009
Accepted: September 7, 2011
John J. M. Dwyer, Tala Chulak, Scott Maitland, and Judy
Sheeshka are with the Department of Family Relations and
Applied Nutrition at the University of Guelph. Kenneth R.
Allison is with KR Allison Research Consulting and University
of Toronto. Daria C. Lysy and Guy E. J. Faulkner are with
the Physical Activity Research Program at the University of
Toronto.
activity levels during childhood and adolescence track into
adulthood (Telama et al., 2005).
To address youth physical inactivity, it is important to
understand the determinants of physical activity. An im-
portant determinant is self-efficacy, a central component
of the social cognitive theory that refers to belief in one’s
ability to produce desired outcomes (Bandura, 1997).
A resilient sense of self-efficacy allows an individual to
productively use skills when faced with various personal,
social, and situational impediments (Bandura, 1997).
Self-efficacy to overcome barriers to physical activity has
been recognized as a significant predictor of physical ac-
tivity participation among adolescents (Allison, Dwyer, &
Makin, 1999; Petosa, Hortz, Cardina, & Suminski, 2005).
A recent review of physical activity correlates among
adolescents reported that self-efficacy was significantly
and positively associated with physical activity in 28 stud-
ies (Van Der Horst, Paw, Twisk, & Van Mechelen, 2007).
To understand the construct of self-efficacy to over-
come barriers, it is helpful to consider adolescents’ barri-
ers to physical activity identified in previous focus group
research. These barriers include lack of time and feeling
tired (e.g., due to schoolwork, part-time jobs, and respon-
sibilities at home; Allison et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 2006),
having other interests such as screen-time use (Dwyer et

RQES: December 2012 513

Dwyer.indd 513 12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM

 Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
al., 2006; Hohepa, Schofield, & Kolt, 2006), having a busy
social life (Allison et al., 2005), having friends and parents
who do not support physical activity (Allison et al., 2005;
Dwyer et al., 2006), and not having friends to do physi-
cal activity with (Allison et al., 2005). Lacking motivation
(Hohepa et al., 2006), being bored (Allison et al., 2005),
the stress of competition (Dwyer et al., 2006), feeling
intimidated by others when playing sports (Allison et al.,
2005), insufficient physical skills (Hohepa et al., 2006),
concern that peers would tease them for playing poorly
(Allison et al., 2005), being self-conscious about their
physical appearance and being overweight (Dwyer et al.,
2006), and injury (Allison et al., 2005) are also barriers.
Additional barriers include unavailable or inaccessible
facilities and programs (e.g., costly programs, lack of
transportation to facilities, and staying home because of
the weather; Dwyer et al., 2006; Hohepa et al., 2006) and
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
concern about unsafe facilities (e.g., facilities where gangs
hang out; Dwyer et al., 2006; Hohepa et al., 2006).
Previous measures of self-efficacy to overcome bar-
riers to physical activity participation had shortcomings,
in particular poor content validity due to inadequately
addressing some important barriers. The Self-Efficacy
for Exercise Behaviors Scale (Sallis, Pinski, Grossman,
Patterson, & Nader, 1988) has items referring to an ex-
ercise program; thus, the content of the items reflects a
narrower component of physical activity (i.e., structured
physical activity to achieve a cardiovascular effect) rather
than physical activity broadly. Also, factor analysis results
were weak. The self-efficacy measure in the Reynolds et al.
(1990) study has item content that reflects only exercise
and has poor content validity. Also, factor analysis did not
examine construct dimensionality. The Self-Efficacy Scale
(Saunders et al., 1997) does not address important bar-
riers, such as being teased and bullied by others, and the
stress of competition and internal consistency reliabilities
of the subscales are low. Ryan and Dzewaltowski (2002)
did not examine the factorial validity of the Barriers Ef-
ficacy Scale. Item response modeling, which focuses on
item difficulty, was used to develop the Physical Activity
Self-Efficacy Scale (Jago et al., 2009). It did not include
various barriers, such as teasing and bullying by others, or
facilities not being available or accessible. Also, there were
insufficient easy and difficult items; thus, more psychomet-
ric research on the measure is needed (Jago et al., 2009).
Dwyer, Allison, and Makin (1998) adapted measures
used in previous research (Reynolds et al., 1990; Sallis et
al., 1988) to develop their self-efficacy measure. Analysis
yielded two factors: self-efficacy to overcome (a) external
barriers and (b) internal barriers. As a cautionary note,
this measure assesses self-efficacy to overcome barriers
related to vigorous physical activity rather than both mod-
erate and vigorous physical activity. Ryan and Dzewaltowski
(2002) found that the type of physical activity referred to
in self-efficacy measures (vigorous exercise vs. moderate
514 RQES: December 2012
Dwyer.indd 514
or vigorous physical activity) influenced the relationship
between self-efficacy and physical activity levels among
youth. Dwyer et al.’s measure addresses many barriers,
but subsequent qualitative research among adolescents
identified additional barriers the measure should address
(e.g., being teased, bullied, or intimidated by others dur-
ing physical activity; Allison et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 2006).
The purpose of our study was to revise the Dwyer et
al. (1998) self-efficacy measure by including additional
barriers identified in previous qualitative research (Allison
et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 2006) and using moderate and
vigorous physical activity (rather than exercise or vigorous
physical activity) as a reference point, which is consistent
with the recommended mode of physical activity (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). The revised
measure is the Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physi-
cal Activity Scale (SOBPAS). We examined the factorial
validity, internal consistency reliability, and predictive
validity of the SOBPAS. This measure could be used in
research examining topics such as correlates of physical
activity and physical activity intervention research.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Five schools were conveniently selected in Toronto,
Ontario, and students in grades 9, 10, and 11 were invited
to participate in the study. University and school board
committees provided research ethics approval for the
research protocol. An information letter and parental con-
sent form (active consent) were sent home with students.
During February to May 2005, research staff administered
the self-report measures in the schools to students who
returned a signed consent form. Five hundred eighteen
students completed the measure. We removed 34 par-
ticipants with outliers in the Self-Administered Physical
Activity Checklist (SAPAC) data (more than 3 hr/day on a
specific physical activity). This resulted in a sample of 484
participants consisting of 177 students in grade 9, 149 in
grade 10, and 158 in grade 11. There were 14- (n = 117),
15- (n = 162), 16- (n = 147), 17- (n = 55), and 18-year-olds
(n = 3) in the sample; M age = 15.3 years, SD = 1.0. There
were 194 boys (40%) and 290 girls (60%). This sample
and the outlier group did not significantly differ in score
distribution for age (χ2 = 3.48, p ≥ .01) and gender (χ2 =
4.62, p ≥ .01).
Measures
We pilot tested the measures among 90 students in
one high school (45 students in grade 9, 28 students in
grade 10, and 17 students in grade 11) to determine
whether they had difficulty answering specific questions
and to improve measures as necessary. The SOBPAS is a
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM

revision of a 20-item measure of self-efficacy to overcome
barriers to vigorous physical activity among high school
students (Dwyer et al., 1998). The Dwyer et al. measure,
which consisted of an external barriers subscale (e.g., lack
of support from friends) and an internal barriers subscale
(e.g., not having fun), had good internal consistency reli-
ability and did not correlate significantly with social desir-
ability. We made several revisions to the measure based on
the findings of qualitative studies on barriers to physical
activity among adolescents. We removed “feel stressed,”
because the Dwyer et al. measure already included items
reflecting sources of stress (e.g., too much schoolwork,
having a job, and family responsibilities). We replaced
“lack willpower” and “do not feel in the mood” with “not
motivated” (Hohepa et al., 2006) and replaced “long-term
illness, disability, or injury” with the more general “being
sick or injured.” We added six additional barriers based
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
on qualitative studies: “weather” (Allison et al., 2005),
“not having a safe place to do physical activity” (Dwyer
et al., 2006), “being bullied or intimidated by others”
and “being teased by friends during physical activity or
sports” (Allison et al., 2005; Hohepa at al., 2006), “not
having transportation to facilities” (Allison et al., 2005),
and “too much competition” (Allison et al., 2005; Dwyer
et al., 2006). The SOBPAS question stem states: “How
confident are you that you can overcome this thing
and still do moderate or vigorous physical activities?” It
provided examples of moderate and vigorous physical
activities. The question stem identifies the type of physical
activity but does not specify frequency, duration, and time
frame, which is consistent with an approach used previ-
ously (Dwyer et al., 1998; Saunders et al., 1997). Thus, the
SOBPAS measures self-efficacy to overcome barriers to
moderate and vigorous physical activity in general rather
than barriers related to a specific type of physical activity,
which was inconsistent in previous research. For example,
Ryan and Dzewaltowski (2002) specified at least 60 min
of moderate or vigorous physical activity on most days
of the week, Jago et al. (2009) used 30 min or more of
physical activity either “one day” or at least 4 days/week,
and Sallis et al. (1988) referred to exercise during at least
the next 6 months. Twenty-four barriers are listed, and
response options are 1 = not at all confident, 2 = not very
confident, 3 = somewhat confident, 4 = confident, and
5 = very confident. Also, participants reported their age,
grade level, and sex and completed other measures not
directly related to the focus of this article.
We used a modified version of the SAPAC to assess
participation in physical activity. Originally, the SAPAC was
developed as a 1-day recall of physical activity participa-
tion and selected sedentary activities (Sallis et al., 1996).
The physical activity component was shown to have good
reliability and validity (Sallis et al., 1996). The SAPAC has
been adapted to a 7-day recall of these activities (Marshall,
Biddle, Sallis, McKenzie, & Conway, 2002). We used this
RQES: December 2012 515
Dwyer.indd 515
Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
recall form in the current study to assess physical activity
participation. We used the modified SAPAC to determine
metabolic equivalent (MET) hours/week (energy ex-
penditure). Participants received a list of 25 activities, such
as soccer and dance, and five spaces to list other activities.
They reported the number of days they performed the
activities in the previous 7 days and the average number
of minutes they did each activity. The frequency (days),
duration (hours), and MET values representing the inten-
sity of each activity for youth (Ridley, Ainsworth, & Olds,
2008) were multiplied and summed to determine MET
hours/week. Other researchers have used this calcula-
tion procedure (Imperatore, Cheng, Williams, Fulton, &
Gregg, 2006). We calculated only activities with an MET
value of 3.0 or higher (i.e., moderate to vigorous intensity)
to be consistent with the SOBPAS focusing on self-efficacy
to overcome barriers related to moderate or vigorous
physical activity. We considered participants reporting
more than 3 hr/day on a specific physical activity to be
outliers and removed them. MET hours/week were posi-
tively skewed, so a square root transformation was done
to yield a normal distribution.
Statistical Analyses
We used SPSS to perform statistical analyses. Descrip-
tive statistics for demographics were calculated, and Prin-
cipal Axis Factoring (PAF, which focuses on identifying a
theoretical factor solution) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007)
was performed on the SOBPAS items. Pairwise deletion
was used to deal with missing data.
We extended our analyses to incorporate confirma-
tory factor analysis (CFA) to determine the strength of
the SOBPAS model. Models were tested using Amos
17 (SPSS, 2009). We analyzed covariance matrices with
results reported as standardized estimates for ease of in-
terpretation. For factor scaling, we set one factor loading
to 1.0 for each factor. The chi-square difference test (Δχ2;
Joreskog & Sorbom, 1987) was used to compare nested
models and evaluate whether model modifications pro-
vided significant improvement at each step. Model fit was
evaluated by examining the following fit indexes: model
χ2 and the ratio of χ2/df (Bollen, 1989), goodness of fit
index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1987), non-normed fit
index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980), comparative fit
index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990). The model fit
well if a consensus of measures met or exceeded gener-
ally accepted levels. It is widely accepted that model χ2
should be nonsignificant if the model fits well, although
this measure is sensitive to large sample sizes. Therefore,
we consulted GFI, NNFI, and CFI values, and all should
exceed .90 to indicate acceptable fit. Additionally, RMSEA,
which demonstrates the amount of error variance per
degree of freedom, should result in values less than .05.
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM
 Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
Beyond simply ensuring that a measurement model
fits the data well, the extension to multigroup factor
models tests whether measures mark the same constructs
across comparison groups (Maitland, Nyberg, Bäckman,
Nilsson, & Adolfsson, 2009). We conducted tests of mea-
surement equivalence or invariance (ME/I; Vandenberg
& Lance, 2000) for age and gender groups (n 14–15 =
240, n 16–18 = 162; n boys = 167, n girls = 235). To address
whether the factor solution was the same for boys and
girls, we tested ME/I of the best fitting model. First, the
configural model assessed whether the factor structure
was the same for boys and girls. Once equivalence was
established, we tested three further hypotheses: equivalent
factor loadings, equivalent relationships between factors,
and the hypothesis of equivalent measurement residuals.
We followed similar procedures to test for invariance
between the two age groups. We conducted analyses on
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
all participants with complete data, thus allowing the GFI
and modification indexes to be calculated.
We analyzed internal consistency reliability on the
subscales. Finally, structural models regressed the physical
activity measure (MET hours/week) onto the resulting
SOBPAS subscales to further assess our model validity. We
performed a square root transformation on MET hours/
week to normalize the distribution. Evidence of gender
and age invariance controlled for differences accountable
to those personal characteristics.
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
We examined several assumptions of factor analysis
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The sample size of 484 was
above the recommended 300 for a reliable factor analy-
sis. Z scores and squared multiple correlations (SMCs)
showed no univariate and multivariate outliers, respec-
tively (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Skewness and kurtosis
values, histograms, and normal Q-Q plots showed nor-
mally distributed data (Field, 2009). Scatter plots of items
showed the assumption of linearity was met (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2007). Multicollinearity was not present in the
matrix, as correlations were below the .80 cut-off value and
SMCs were not close to 1.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Next, we assessed the factorability of the correlation
matrix. There was a relationship between the items in that
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 5,799.12, p <
.001), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value exceeded Kaiser’s
(1974) recommendation of > .90 (Tabachnick & Fidell,
2007). Also, measures of sampling adequacy for each item
were above .93, larger than the recommended value of >
.70 (Kaiser, 1974). Examination of the correlation matrix
indicated that all items correlated significantly (p < .05)
and positively with each other, ranging from .21 to .73.
516 RQES: December 2012
Dwyer.indd 516
PAF relates to theory development or identifying
underlying constructs (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007); thus,
we used this factor extraction technique. It is recom-
mended that researchers explore different numbers of
factors to identify the best factor solution (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). We used several methods (eigenvalues > 1,
Kaiser, 1960; scree plot, Cattell, 1966; percent of variance
explained in extracted factors, the residuals, and factor
interpretability) to identify the number of factors. Only
items with factor loadings of .32 or larger, which represents
10% variance overlap between an item and factor, were
interpreted (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). PAF with oblique
(direct oblimin) rotation, using Kaiser’s criterion, initially
yielded a three-factor solution. We used oblique rotation
because previous research showed moderate to large cor-
relations among self-efficacy subscales (Dwyer et al., 1998;
Saunders et al., 1997). In contrast to Kaiser’s criterion re-
sults, the scree plot to identify distinct changes in the slope
for plotted eigenvalues (Cattell, 1966) indicated it was best
to retain five factors. The three-factor solution was unclear,
as items on various factors did not fit together conceptually,
and some loaded significantly on more than one factor.
Kaiser’s criterion may over- or underestimate the number
of factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Thus, we examined
two-, four-, five-, and six-factor solutions, with direct obli-
min rotation. The two-, four-, and six-factor solutions were
difficult to interpret. Again, the solutions were unclear, as
factor items did not conceptually fit together and some had
significant loadings on more than one factor.
The five-factor solution was stable (except for the un-
supportive parent item, there were no double loadings of
items on factors), had fewer residuals with absolute values
greater than .05 (3%), and had interpretable factors (fac-
tor items fit conceptually to reflect specific constructs);
therefore, we deemed it the best solution. Table 1 shows
factor loadings in the factor pattern matrix, the commu-
nalities, and the variance explained by the solution. The
communalities indicated that the five factors accounted
for 29–74% of the variance in each item, and the solution
accounted for 54% of the variance. In all factor solutions,
the barrier “weather” had lower factor loadings and less
fit within a factor. For exploratory purposes, this item was
removed and all factor solutions were reanalyzed. Remov-
ing the item produced factor solutions that were less in-
terpretable; thus, the item was retained in the five-factor
solution in EFA. The factors were labeled internal barriers,
harassment barriers, physical environment barriers, social
environment barriers, and responsibilities barriers.
CFA and Gender and Age Invariance
The five-factor model was specified in Amos; the
initial model fit was reasonable but required some modifi-
cations. The weather and unsupportive parent items were
removed, and data for the 22-item SOBPAS were used in
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM

the remaining analyses. Analyzing the model resulted in:
χ2 Baseline = 611.81, df = 199, χ2/df = 3.07, p < .001, GFI
=.87, NNFI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .07. Results were
mixed, as the NNFI and CFI were good, whereas other fit
indexes suggested model improvement was warranted.
Modification indexes suggested correlating residuals for:
(a) how confident are you that you can overcome feeling
tired and low on energy, and (b) how confident are you
that you can overcome not feeling motivated. It was also
apparent that residuals should be allowed to correlate
Table 1. Principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation on
SOBPAS items
Self-efficacy item (a–x) Factor Com.
1 2 3 4 5
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
v. Embarrassed about
others watching .60 .61
x. Not motivated .54 .65
l. Too much competition .52 .63
q. Concerned about weight .44 .46
p. Other interests (e.g.,
internet, TV or videos,
and computer games) .41 .39
i. Not enough skills .38 .55
m. Teased by friends .67 .74
g. Bullied or intimidated
by others .64 .67
f. Not having a safe place
to do physical activity .40 .56
r. Community programs
are not available .89 .74
t. School programs are
not available .76 .66
s. Parent is not supportive .35 .38 .56
o. Cost of doing physical
activity .36 .47
k. Not having transport
to facilities .33 .42
c. Not having someone
to do physical activity with .69 .61
d. Not having fun .67 .55
e. Friends are not supportive .55 .52
b. Busy social life .44 .46
a. Weather .38 .29
j. Too much school work .55 .45
u. Feeling tired .47 .56
n. Sick or injured .45 .43
w. Family responsibilities .39 .46
h. Having a job .38 .40
Eigenvalue 10.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8
Percent variance
accounted for 43.0 4.3 3.0 2.2 1.4
Note. SOBPAS = Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical
Activity Scale; Com. = communality; loadings less than .32 are
not shown; 1 = internal barriers; 2 = harassment barriers; 3 =
physical environment barriers; 4 = social environment barriers; 5
= responsibilities barriers.
RQES: December 2012 517
Dwyer.indd 517
Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
for: (a) how confident are you that you can overcome
community programs and facilities not being available,
and (b) how confident are you that you can overcome
school programs not being available. Reanalyzing the
model with these modifications resulted in improved fit:
χ2 M1 = 548.00, df = 197, χ2/df = 2.78, p < .001, GFI =.89,
NNFI = .92, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07. The NNFI, CFI, and
GFI values improved. The GFI value did not exceed .90
but improved nonetheless. Although the modifications
did not improve the RMSEA value, they did not make
this index worse. One would not necessarily expect every
fit index to improve when making modifications that are
not extremely substantial. Our global assessment showed
an overall pattern indicating the modifications improved
the model. Comparing the two models showed a signifi-
cant improvement: Δχ2 Baseline–M1 (2) = 63.81, p < .001;
therefore, we accepted the second model as the best fit.
All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001
and ranged from .55 to .85. The SMCs ranged from .35
to .72 indicating that 35–72% of the resulting factors ac-
counted for item variance.
Gender Invariance. We extended the model to a mul-
tigroup framework to examine invariance between male
and female students. The unconstrained or configural
model resulted in a fit decrement compared to the model
described but was deemed acceptable: χ2 M2 = 848.37, df
= 394, χ2/df = 2.13, p < .001, GFI = .84, NNFI = .89, CFI
= .91, RMSEA = .05. The next model tested whether the
factor loadings could be constrained to be equal between
male and female students, and this was also acceptable:
χ2 M3 = 852.00, df = 411, χ2/df = 2.07, p < .001, GFI = .84,
NNFI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05. Comparing the two
models resulted in accepting the hypothesis of equivalent
factor loadings: Δχ2 M3–M2 (17) = 13.63, p = .693. The
next comparison examined whether the factor variances
and covariances could be constrained between genders:
χ2 M4 = 871.71, df = 426, χ2/df = 2.05, p < .001, GFI = .84,
NNFI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05. Comparison of the
measurement weights model with the more restrictive
model constraining variances/covariances demonstrated
invariance: Δχ2 M4–M3 (15) = 19.71, p = .183. The final test
of invariance constrained the measurement residuals to
be equal between boys and girls and compared this result
against the previously accepted invariant variance/covari-
ance model. This result was also tenable: χ2 M5 = 893.76,
df = 450, χ2/df = 1.99, p < .001, GFI = .83, NNFI = .91, CFI
= .91, RMSEA = .05, Δχ2 M5–M4 (24) = 22.05, p = .576.
Age Invariance. Next, we examined age invariance
between two age groups: 14–15-year-olds compared to
16–18-year-olds. The unconstrained or configural model
resulted in a decrement of fit but was viewed as accept-
able: χ2 M6 = 846.54, df = 394, χ2/df = 2.15, p < .001, GFI
=.84, NNFI = .89, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05. The next model
tested whether factor loadings could be constrained to
be equivalent between the two age groups, and this was
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM
 Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka

also accepted: χ2 M7 = 865.89, df = 411, χ2/df = 2.11, p
< .001, GFI = .84, NNFI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05.
Comparison of the models supported the hypothesis of
equivalent factor loadings: Δχ2 M7–M6 (17) = 19.36, p =
.308. The next comparison examined whether the factor
variances and covariances could be constrained between
age groups: χ2 M8 = 883.61, df = 426, χ2/df = 2.07, p < .001,
GFI = .83, NNFI = .90, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .05. Comparing
the measurement weights model with the more restric-
tive model constraining factor variances/covariances
demonstrated acceptable invariance: Δχ2 M8–M7 (15) =
17.72, p = .278. The final test of invariance constrained the
measurement residuals to be equal between the two age
groups and compared this model against the previously
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
accepted model of invariance of factor variances/covari-
ances. This result was also accepted as plausible at p < .01:
χ2 M9 = 925.23, df = 450, χ2/df = 2.06, p < .001, GFI = .82,
NNFI = .90, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .05, Δχ2 M9–M8 (24) =
41.64, p = .014. The standardized solution demonstrating
invariance of all coefficients including residuals is shown
in Figure 1.
Internal Consistency Reliability
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for the SOBPAS sub-
scales were: self-efficacy to overcome (a) internal barriers,
.86, (b) harassment barriers, .81, (c) physical environment
barriers, .82, (d) social environment barriers, .80, and (e)

Figure 1. Standardized solution for final Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical Activity Scale (SOBPAS) model. The
values next to each observed measure are squared multiple correlations, which indicate how much variance in each observed
measure is accounted for by the factors.

518 RQES: December 2012

Dwyer.indd 518 12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM


responsibilities barriers, .79. These values were above the
suggested .70 value (Nunnally, 1978), indicating good
internal consistency reliability.
Predictive Validity of SOBPAS
We used structural regressions to examine the rela-
tionship between the five SOBPAS latent factors and the
physical activity measure (MET hours/week). The model
fit declined from the measurement model described: χ2
M10 = 1341.38, df = 220, χ2/df = 6.09, p < .001, GFI = .82,
NNFI = .74, CFI = .77, RMSEA = .11. The structural regres-
sions between the SOBPAS latent factors and physical
activity level were all statistically significant and ranged
from β = .09 (responsibilities barriers) to β = .25 (internal
barriers). Overall, the five SOBPAS factors accounted for
44% of the variance in physical activity level (see Table 2).
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
Discussion
In this study, we revised a previous measure of self-
efficacy to overcome barriers to vigorous physical activity
among high school students (Dwyer et al., 1998) by modi-
fying the question stem to assess self-efficacy to overcome
barriers to both moderate and vigorous physical activity,
removing redundant barriers, and adding barriers based
on qualitative research among adolescents (Allison et
al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 2006). Factor analysis and internal
consistency reliability analysis of the SOBPAS, which ad-
dresses a more comprehensive barrier list than previous
measures (Dwyer et al., 1998; Reynolds et al., 1990; Ryan
& Dzewaltowski, 2002; Sallis et al., 1988; Saunders et al.,
1997), yielded five theoretically meaningful interpretable
factors. The results suggest that self-efficacy to overcome
impediments to moderate and vigorous physical activity
among adolescents is multidimensional. This is consis-
tent with previous research that used a multidimensional
measure of self-efficacy for physical activity (Dwyer et al.,
Table 2. Structural regression predicting metabolic
equivalent hours/week (square root)
SOBPAS factor St. β SE β R2
Predicting MET hours/week .44
Internal barriers .25* .04
Harassment barriers .12* .04
Physical environment barriers .13* .04
Social environment barriers .12* .04
Responsibilities barriers .09* .04
Note. St. = standardized; SE = standard error; SOBPAS =
Self-Efficacy to Overcome Barriers to Physical Activity Scale;
MET = metabolic equivalent.
*p < .001.
RQES: December 2012 519
Dwyer.indd 519
Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
1998; Saunders et al., 1997). However, there are mixed
views about the dimensionality of self-efficacy for physi-
cal activity. For example, using CFA, Motl et al. (2000)
suggested that self-efficacy to overcome physical activity
barriers is unidimensional. However, they examined the
factorial validity among adolescent girls only, and their
results cannot be generalized to adolescent boys.
In our study, the five factors logically describe the
factor content. The first subscale addressed self-efficacy to
overcome internal barriers such as embarrassment about
others watching, concern about weight, insufficient skills,
not feeling motivated, and having other interests. The sec-
ond subscale dealt with being teased and bullied by others
and was named self-efficacy to overcome harassment barri-
ers. Participants in qualitative research expressed concerns
about safety by referring to gangs hanging out at physical
activity facilities and crime at facilities (Dwyer et al., 2006;
Ries et al., 2008); therefore, lack of safety seemed to fit in
this subscale. The third subscale focused on unavailable
and inaccessible community resources and was named
self-efficacy to overcome physical environment barriers.
The fourth subscale addressed self-efficacy to over-
come social environment barriers such as not having
someone to do physical activity with, unsupportive friends,
and a busy social life. Not having fun fit in this subscale in
that some adolescents enjoy the social aspect of physical
activity and may have more fun doing physical activity
with others. For example, previous research found that
adolescents enjoyed physical activity as an opportunity to
hang out with friends (Hohepa et al., 2006). Nonetheless,
further research is needed to better understand how and
why adolescents have fun doing physical activity regardless
of whether it involves socializing with friends. The fifth
subscale focused on self-efficacy to overcome barriers such
as school work, family responsibilities, and a job. Feeling
tired fit in this subscale because it may occur with addi-
tional responsibilities. For example, Noland, Price, Dake,
and Telljohann (2009) found that many adolescents did
not get enough sleep because of too much homework
(46%), home chores (23%), and a part-time job (21%).
CFA provided further evidence that the factor struc-
ture showed stable measurement properties. The results
were impressive, as we demonstrated invariance of factor
loadings, often considered the minimum equivalence
level to appropriately compare solutions across groups
(see Vandenberg & Lance (2000) for further explanation)
and found ME/I for the factor variances and covariances
as well as measurement residuals. This level of invariance
is rarely demonstrated.
These results differ from the internal structure of the
Dwyer et al. (1998) measure. The SOBPAS comprises five
subscales, whereas the Dwyer et al. measure consists of two.
The Dwyer et al. measure did not address harassment bar-
riers. The differences in factor structure for the SOBPAS
and previous measures may be due to a number of issues.
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM
 Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
First, the SOBPAS measures self-efficacy to overcome bar-
riers to physical activity, whereas some others focus on self-
efficacy to overcome impediments to exercise (Reynolds et
al., 1990; Sallis et al., 1988). Exercise is a structured physical
activity that is done for fitness reasons; thus, self-efficacy
to overcome barriers to exercise and physical activity in
general may be different. Second, the SOBPAS measures
self-efficacy to overcome barriers to both moderate and
vigorous physical activity, whereas the Dwyer et al. measure
deals with self-efficacy to overcome barriers to vigorous
physical activity only. Some people may be less confident
that they can handle impediments, such as not having fun
and not feeling motivated, in more strenuous physical
activities. Third, the number of items in various measures
likely influenced the factor structure; including more items
allows various dimensions to be examined more compre-
hensively. For example, the SOBPAS assesses self-efficacy
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
to overcome 22 barriers to physical activity, whereas other
measures focus on fewer barriers (e.g., Sallis et al., 1988,
12 obstacles; Dwyer et al., 1998, 20 obstacles).
The regression results are consistent with findings
from previous research showing that self-efficacy to
overcome barriers to physical activity predicts adolescent
physical activity. For example, researchers have found
that self-efficacy to overcome barriers predicted moder-
ate and vigorous physical activity among youth (Ryan &
Dzewaltowski, 2002), vigorous physical activity among
high school students (Allison et al., 1999), and physical
activity participation among both rural and urban adoles-
cents (Loucaides, Plotnikoff, & Bercovitz, 2007). In those
studies, self-efficacy accounted for one third or less of the
variance in physical activity (3–8%, Allison et al., 1999;
14–18%, Loucaides et al., 2007; 26–37%, Ryan & Dzewal-
towski, 2002). The SOBPAS factors demonstrated a strong
ability to predict physical activity level, accounting for a bit
less than half the variance in energy expenditure, clearly
demonstrating the value of self-efficacy to overcome bar-
riers in explaining this relationship.
A limitation of this study is that the number of nonre-
spondents was not tracked; thus, the response rate could
not be calculated to examine sample representativeness.
To further assess the SOBPAS validity, future research
could examine the relationship between the SOBPAS
and a measure of general self-efficacy, its ability to predict
physical activity assessed by a more objective measure such
as an accelerometer, and whether it predicts a change in
physical activity levels over time. Test-retest reliability could
also be examined. Although the SOBPAS provides ex-
amples of moderate and vigorous physical activity, adding
a definition (e.g., an activity that causes some increase in
breathing, heart rate, or sweating) to the measure would
be a useful frame of reference for respondents.
In conclusion, the SOBPAS is a revision of the Dwyer
et al. (1998) self-efficacy measure. It includes additional
barriers to physical activity identified in previous qualita-
520 RQES: December 2012
Dwyer.indd 520
tive research (Allison et al., 2005; Dwyer et al., 2006),
and unlike other instruments it measures self-efficacy to
overcome barriers to both moderate and vigorous physical
activity. Analyses of SOBPAS data from a sample of male
and female high school students in different grades in-
dicated the SOBPAS is a multidimensional measure of
self-efficacy to overcome barriers and has good construct
validity, internal consistency reliability, and predictive
validity. Results suggest the SOBPAS shows promise in
research on the correlates of physical activity and physi-
cal activity intervention research targeting self-efficacy to
overcome barriers as a determinant of behavior change.
References
Allison, K. R., Adlaf, E. M., Dwyer, J. J. M., Lysy, D. C., & Irving,
H. M. (2007). The decline in physical activity among ado-
lescent students: A cross-national comparison. Canadian
Journal of Public Health, 98(2), 97–100.
Allison, K. R., Dwyer, J. J. M., Goldenberg, E., Fein, A., Yoshida,
K. K., & Boutilier, M. (2005). Male adolescents’ reasons for
participating in physical activity, barriers to participation,
and suggestions for increasing participation. Adolescence,
40, 155–170.
Allison, K. R., Dwyer, J. J. M., & Makin, S. (1999). Self-efficacy
and participation in vigorous physical activity by high school
students. Health Education and Behavior, 26(1), 12–24.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit indices, LaGrange multipliers, con-
straint changes, and incomplete data in structural models.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 163–172.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New
York: John Wiley.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008, November
5). Physical activity for everyone: How much physical activity do
children need? Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://
www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/chil-
dren.html
Dwyer, J. J. M., Allison, K. R., Goldenberg, E. R., Fein, A. J.,
Yoshida, K. K., & Boutilier, M. A. (2006). Adolescent girls’
perceived barriers to participation in physical activity. Ado-
lescence, 41, 75–89.
Dwyer, J. J. M., Allison, K. R., & Makin, S. (1998). Internal
structure of a measure of self-efficacy in physical activity
among high school students. Social Science and Medicine,
46, 1175–1182.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Lon-
don: Sage Publications Ltd.
Gilmour, H. (2007). Physically active Canadians (Statistics Canada,
catalogue 82-003). Health Reports, 18(3), 45–65. Retrieved
March 4, 2010, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-
003-x/2006008/article/phys/10307-eng.pdf
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM

Grunbaum, J. A., Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B., Ross,
J. G., Lowry, R., & Kolbe, L. (2002). Youth risk behavior
surveillance—United States, 2001. Journal of School Health,
72, 313–328.
Hohepa, M., Schofield, G., & Kolt, G. S. (2006). Physical activity:
What do high school students think? Journal of Adolescent
Health, 39, 328–336.
Imperatore, G., Cheng, Y. J., Williams, D. E., Fulton, J., & Gregg,
E. W. (2006). Physical activity, cardiovascular fitness, and
insulin sensitivity among U.S. adolescents: The National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2002.
Diabetes Care, 29, 1567–1572.
Jago, R., Baranowski, T., Watson, K., Bachman, C., Baranowski,
J. C., Thompson, D.,...Moe, E. (2009, March 31). Devel-
opment of new physical activity and sedentary behavior
change self-efficacy questionnaires using item response
modeling. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 6, 20.
Downloaded by [University of Cambridge] at 17:04 19 December 2014
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1987). LISREL 7. A guide to the
program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers
to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20, 141–151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,
39(1), 31–36.
Loucaides, C. A., Plotnikoff, R. C., & Bercovitz, K. (2007).
Differences in the correlates of physical activity between
urban and rural Canadian youth. Journal of School Health,
77, 164–170.
Maitland, S. B., Nyberg, L., Bäckman, L., Nilsson, L-G., & Adolfs-
son, R. (2009). On the structure of personality: Are there
separate temperament and character factors? Personality
and Individual Differences, 47, 180–184.
Marshall, S. J., Biddle, S. J. H., Sallis, J. F., McKenzie, T. L., &
Conway, T. L. (2002). Clustering of sedentary behaviors
and physical activity among youth: A cross-national study.
Pediatric Exercise Science, 14, 401–417.
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Trost, S. G., Saunders, R. P., Dowda,
M., Felton, G.,...Pate, R. R. (2000). Factorial validity and
invariance of questionnaires measuring social-cognitive
determinants of physical activity among adolescent girls.
Preventive Medicine, 31, 584–594.
Noland, H., Price, J. H., Dake, J., & Telljohann, S. K. (2009).
Adolescents’ sleep behaviors and perceptions of sleep.
Journal of School Health, 79, 224–230.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Petosa, R. L., Hortz, B. V., Cardina, C. E., & Suminski, R. R.
(2005). Social cognitive theory variables associated with
physical activity among high school students. International
Journal of Sports Medicine, 26, 158–163.
Reynolds, K. D., Killen, J. D., Bryson, S. W., Maron, D. J., Taylor,
C. B., Maccoby, N., & Farquhar, J. W. (1990). Psychosocial
predictors of physical activity in adolescents. Preventive
Medicine, 19, 541–551.
Ridley, K., Ainsworth, B. E., & Olds, T. S. (2008). Development
of a compendium of energy expenditures for youth. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
5, 45–52.
RQES: December 2012 521
Dwyer.indd 521
Dwyer, Chulak, Maitland, Allison, Lysy, Faulkner, and Sheeshka
Ries, A. V., Gittelsohn, J., Voorhees, C. C., Roche, K. M., Clifton,
K. J., & Astone, N. M. (2008). The environment and urban
adolescents’ use of recreational facilities for physical activ-
ity: A qualitative study. American Journal of Health Promotion,
23(1), 43–50.
Ryan, G. J., & Dzewaltowski, D. A. (2002). Comparing the
relationships between different types of self-efficacy and
physical activity in youth. Health Education and Behavior,
29, 491–504.
Sallis, J. F., Pinski, R. B., Grossman, R. M., Patterson, T. L., &
Nader, P. R. (1988). The development of self-efficacy scales
for health-related diet and exercise behaviors. Health Educa-
tion Research, 3, 283–292.
Sallis, J. F., Strikmiller, P. K., Harsha, D. W., Feldman, H. A.,
Ehlinger, S., Stone, E. J.,...Woods, S. (1996). Validation of
interviewer- and self-administered physical activity check-
lists for fifth grade students. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 28, 840–851.
Saunders, R. P., Pate, R. R., Felton, G., Dowda, M., Weinrich,
M. C., Ward, D. S.,...Baranowski, T. (1997). Development
of questionnaires to measure psychosocial influences on
children’s physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 26, 241–247.
SPSS. (2009). Amos 17.0 [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modifica-
tion: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, 25, 173–180.
Strong, W. B., Malina, R. M., Blimkie, C. J., Daniels, S. R., Dish-
man, R. K., Gutin, B.,...Trudeau, F. (2005). Evidence based
physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics,
146, 732–737.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statis-
tics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Telama, R., Yang, X., Viikari, J., Valimaki, I., Wanne, O., &
Raitakari, O. (2005). Physical activity from childhood to
adulthood: A 21-year tracking study. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 28, 267–273.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis
of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions,
practices, and recommendations for organizational re-
search. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.
Van Der Horst, K., Paw, M. J., Twisk, J. W., & Van Mechelen,
W. (2007). A brief review on correlates of physical activity
and sedentariness in youth. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 39, 1241–1250.
Authors’ Notes
This research was funded by the Heart and Stroke Founda-
tion of Ontario (HBR4860). Please address correspond-
ence concerning this article and requests for a copy of the
SOBPAS to John Dwyer, Department of Family Relations
and Applied Nutrition, College of Social and Applied Hu-
man Sciences, University of Guelph, Macdonald Institute
Building, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario, Canada,
N1G 2W1.
E-mail: dwyer@uoguelph.ca
12/4/2012 1:22:14 PM