Allison et al.

/ Self-Efficacy
Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

Self-Efficacy and Participation in Vigorous

Physical Activity by High School Students

Kenneth R. Allison, PhD

John J. M. Dwyer, PhD
Susan Makin, MEd

The relationship between physical activity self-efficacy and participation in vigorous physical activity by
high school students is examined in this article. Self-efficacy is hypothesized to be positively related to partici-
pation in three settings (physical education class, other school-related activities, and outside of school). The
effects of age, gender, perceived barriers, and actual barriers are also examined. The sample consists of 1,041
grade 9 and 11 students from a large Metropolitan Toronto school board. Factors derived from a previous (fac-
tor) analysis were used to examine the effects of self-efficacy, perceived barriers, and life strain (an actual bar-
rier). The results of multiple regression analysis indicate that physical activity self-efficacy, despite external
barriers (but not internal barriers), is predictive of physical activity participation in the hypothesized direction.
Other results show consistent age and gender effects on physical activity participation and some support for the
hypothesized relationship between perceived barriers and participation.

The study reported here examines the relationship between self-efficacy (the degree of
confidence one has in being able to perform a behavior) and participation in vigorous
physical activity by high school students. In addition, it examines the effects of age, gen-
der, actual barriers, and perceived barriers on physical activity participation. The underly-
ing problems addressed here are the decline of physical activity levels with age among
1-4
youths and the lack of empirical studies dealing with determinants of physical activity at
this stage of the life course.5,6

Benefits and Patterns of Physical Activity

Considerable empirical evidence supports the relationship of physical activity and fit-
ness to reductions in all-cause mortality and lower rates of several diseases and

Kenneth R. Allison is an associate professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Toronto, and Ontario Ministry of Health career scientist. John J. M. Dwyer is a program evaluation
specialist, Toronto Public Health, and assistant professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of
Medicine, University of Toronto. Susan Makin is regional director, Toronto Public Health.
Address reprint requests to Kenneth R. Allison, Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine,
McMurrich Building, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8; phone: (416) 978-5869; fax: (416)
978-2087; e-mail: k.allison@utoronto.ca.
At the time of the study, the authors were project investigators of the North York Community Health Promo-
tion Research Unit, supported by a Health System-Linked Research Unit grant from the Ontario Ministry of
Health. This research was supported by grant 942R017 from the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Insti-
tute. Appreciation is extended to Patricia McNair for assistance in data collection and processing and to two
anonymous reviewers for useful comments.

Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 26 (1): 12-24 (February 1999)

© 1999 by SOPHE
12

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 13

conditions.7-11 Physical activity is also associated with a range of both physiological and
psychological benefits.12-15 While there is inconclusive evidence to indicate that physical
activity is stable over time, it is generally considered important that patterns of vigorous
physical activity be established in the younger years, both for the immediate benefits
obtained and to develop positive behaviors that can be deployed throughout the life
span.5,12
Several studies and reviews documenting the physical activity patterns of the popula-
tion indicate lower levels of activity among older and female adolescents and young
adults.3,4,16,17 Additional review articles have documented the various psychological and
social correlates and predictors of physical activity participation.18-23 However, there is an
expressed need for additional studies to further elucidate the factors influencing behavior
and to inform appropriate intervention strategies to promote higher levels of participa-
tion.6,18,20,23 While an examination of the factors influencing activity among youths is con-
sidered important, few studies have examined the correlates and predictors of physical
activity among this age-group.5,6,23-26 Furthermore, few studies have used social cognitive
theory, or the concept of self-efficacy specifically, as a theoretical framework for examin-
ing the relationship of cognitions to physical activity participation among youths.6

Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy

Social cognitive theory is a useful framework for examining the determinants of

behavior since it is based on reciprocal and dynamic relationships between environmental
factors, personal factors, and behavior.27,28 In relation to physical activity, an individual
who has been able to complete an exercise class without giving up is likely to feel confi-
dent in his or her ability to successfully complete subsequent sessions. The opposite is
also true regarding unsuccessful attempts and subsequent effects on self-efficacy. Thus,
self-efficacy deals with cognitions of confidence, competence, and capability on the basis
of past experience and other sources of information.
Self-efficacy, like other concepts dealing with personal agency, is said to vary by such
sociodemographic factors as age, gender, and socioeconomic status.29 Regarding varia-
tion throughout the life course, self-efficacy is said to increase during childhood and
young adulthood, to peak during middle age, and to decline after about age 60. It is usu-
ally higher among men and is positively related to socioeconomic status.29
Self-efficacy is believed to be largely situation specific,27,28,30,31 a contention that is
borne out in much of the literature on the dimensionality of self-efficacy. For example, an
examination of the various aspects of health behavior self-efficacy found specific dimen-
sions around discrete behaviors, such as exercise, nutrition, or medical care.32 Further-
more, Sallis et al. and McAuley and Jacobson concluded that exercise self-efficacy was
itself multidimensional.33,34 Sallis et al. identified two factors of exercise self-
efficacy—“resisting relapse” and “making time for exercise.”33 McAuley and Jacobson’s
analysis also produced two factors, labeled “lack of progress” and “external commitments.”34
Dwyer, Allison, and Makin report two identifiable factors of physical activity self-
efficacy among high school students based on confidence to participate in vigorous
physical activity despite external barriers or confidence to participate despite internal bar-
riers.35 These dimensions of physical activity self-efficacy make sense from a theoretical
perspective, since efficaciousness would be expected to vary according to the degree to
which individuals believe in their capabilities to enact a behavior in specific situations.
The research literature indicates that self-efficacy is an important correlate of physi-
cal activity or exercise participation.6,18,20,21,36,37 The vast majority of these studies were

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

14 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

conducted by using adult participants. A consistent finding is that physical activity is a

significant predictor of physical activity participation in a number of settings. These stud-
ies used measures of perceived confidence to participate despite specific barriers or
obstacles to represent self-efficacy. Few studies have examined the relationship between
self-efficacy and physical activity among youths.6,26

Perceived Barriers, Actual Barriers, and Physical Activity

The notion that perceived barriers influence health-related behavior is derived from
the Health Belief Model.38,39 Perceived barriers, an essential component of the model, has
been shown in several studies to be consistently related to the likelihood of undertaking a
number of health-related behaviors.40,41 Perceived barriers have been shown to be associ-
ated with exercise self-efficacy,32 intentions,42 and exercise itself.21,43,44
Although the importance of actual barriers, as distinguished from perceived barriers,
is sometimes acknowledged, there has been little empirical study of this topic.18 In the
current study, the self-reported times required for such activities as homework, part-time
work, and television watching were measured. These, potentially, take time away from
participation in physical activity and thus can be conceptualized as actual barriers. Life
strain (measured as the level of underlying sources of stress) was also conceptualized as
an actual barrier, since reported concerns about such issues as parents, homework, or peer
pressure would likely present obstacles to engaging in physical activity.

Focus of Current Study and Hypotheses

The purpose of this article is to contribute to knowledge on the determinants of physi-

cal activity among youths. There are several unique features of this study. First, the rela-
tionship between self-efficacy and physical activity participation among students is
examined. As mentioned previously, few studies have examined this relationship among
youths. Second, the study uses a community sample of students, as opposed to a clinical
or convenience sample. Third, factor analyses of items measuring physical activity self-
efficacy, perceived barriers to physical activity, and life strain, conducted earlier by the
authors, indicate that these concepts are multidimensional and that the factors are theo-
retically important. Finally, the study includes measures of physical activity participation
in three settings—physical education classes, other school activities, and outside-of-
school activities since it is possible that the effects of self-efficacy and other predictors
may vary by setting.
The hypotheses are the following:

Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy and physical activity participation will be positively corre-

lated in each of the three activity settings—physical education classes, other
school-related activities, and outside-of-school activities.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived barriers will be negatively correlated with physical activity
participation in the three settings.
Hypothesis 3: Actual barriers will also be negatively correlated with participation in
the three settings.
Hypothesis 4: Older students and females will have lower levels of physical activity
participation in the three settings.
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between physical activity self-efficacy and physical
activity participation in the three settings will be independent, when including the

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 15

effects of age, gender, perceived barriers, and actual barriers.

METHOD

Design and Sample

The design of the study consisted of a survey of 1,041 Grade 9 (n = 688) and Grade 11 (n
= 353) students in a large Metropolitan Toronto board of education, using a two-stage
cluster sample design.45,46 In the first stage of sampling, 12 of 18 secondary schools con-
taining both Grade 9 and Grade 11 students were randomly selected. From the selected
schools, classrooms of Grade 9 and Grade 11 were randomly selected for inclusion in the
survey. The school-level response rate was 75% (8 of 12 schools) and the student-level
response rate was 81.4% (1,041 eligible completions/1,041 + 21 refusals + 217 absentees).

Measures Used

Participation in Vigorous Physical Activity

Physical activity and exercise have been measured in several different ways in previ-
ous studies.16,47-50 Generally, physical activity has been found to be reliably measured by
using self-reports on standardized questionnaires.49 Modified measures from Campbell’s
survey and the U.S. National Adolescent Student Health Survey were used in the current
study.16,51 The measures developed and used for this study retain the standard description
of vigorous physical activity endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine.52 An
introductory statement to the question reads, “A physical activity is vigorous if it lasts for
20 minutes or more, and makes your heart beat faster, and makes you breathe a lot faster.”
Respondents were asked to indicate the number of days per week they engage in vigorous
physical activity for each of three settings—physical education classes, other activities in
school (intramurals, interscholastic sports), and outside of school (recreation,
community-sponsored sports). In the case of physical education classes, the scale ranged
from 0 to 5 days, while for the other two settings the scale ranged from 0 to 7 days.

Self-Efficacy

A 20-item scale of self-efficacy in relation to overcoming perceived barriers to vigor-

ous physical activity was used. The items are adapted versions of previously validated
measures.6,32,33 The scale consists of items assessing the confidence respondents have that
they can participate in vigorous physical activity in a number of situations (see examples
in Table 1). The items are measured on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all confi-
dent) to 5 (very confident).
Factor analysis was used earlier to identify the factor structure of physical activity self-
efficacy. Using oblique rotation, two factors emerged (summarized in Table 1)—self-
efficacy regarding participation in vigorous physical activity despite external barriers and
self-efficacy despite internal barriers.35

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

16 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

Table 1. Internal Reliability of Factor Subscales

Itemsa α
Barriers—external 6 .60
Barriers—internal 10 .79
Self-efficacy—external barriers 12 .88
Self-efficacy—internal barriers 8 .87
Life strain—social 10 .80
Life strain—family/school 5 .70

a. Examples of these items (two each) are as follows:

Barriers—external: lack of time due to school; cost.
Barriers—internal: not feeling in the mood; lack of energy.
Self-efficacy—external barriers: if there is a lack of time due to family responsibilities; if there is a
lack of programs.
Self-efficacy—internal barriers: if you feel discomfort; if you fear injury.
Life strain—social: peer pressure; meeting people.
Life strain—family/school: parents or guardians; homework.

Perceived Barriers

We have adapted measures of perceived barriers used previously in Campbell’s Study

of Wellbeing.16 The present items ask the importance of 16 factors in “preventing you
from participating in vigorous physical activity.” Items are scored on a 5-point scale,
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Factor analysis of these items, using oblique
rotation, revealed two underlying factors—internal barriers and external barriers (sum-
marized in Table 1).

Actual Barriers

A measure of life strain deployed in this study was adapted from an earlier version
used in a study of stress, coping, and drug use.53 Respondents were asked to indicate, for
15 possible sources of stress, how much each is a source of stress for them. Response cate-
gories ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a very great source of stress). A factor analysis,
using oblique rotation, indicated a two-factor solution, labeled as social strain, and family
and school strain (see Table 1).
To assess lack of time as an actual barrier, questions were constructed to determine the
number of hours of homework, part-time work, and television watching per week stu-
dents engaged in.

Data Collection Strategy

Data were collected in the classroom during regular class time. The questionnaire took
about 40 minutes to complete, including the time for giving instructions and completing
the participant consent form. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the univer-
sity Human Subjects Review Committee and the ethics committees of the Board of Edu-
cation and the Public Health Department.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 17

Data Analysis

For the perceived barriers, strain, and self-efficacy scales, factor analyses were per-
formed to identify the underlying dimensions and reduce the number of items in the
scales. Both principal-axis and principal components factoring were used. Selection of
factors with an eigenvalue of greater than 1 and Cattell’s scree test were used to determine
the number of factors.54 The factor analysis indicated the construct (factorial) validity of
the measures. Cronbach’s alpha was used to estimate the internal consistency reliability
of factor-derived scales.55 The derived factor scores were used in the analysis for this
article.
Since both perceived self-efficacy and perceived barriers were significantly related to
gender, and because gender is itself a strong predictor of physical activity participation,
four interaction terms were created and used in the analysis: the interaction between gen-
der and perceived internal barriers, between gender and perceived external barriers,
between gender and self-efficacy regarding internal barriers, and between gender and
self-efficacy regarding external barriers.
Pearson correlations were used for assessing bivariate relationships. Hierarchical mul-
tiple regression analysis was used to determine the relative effects of physical activity
self-efficacy when taking into account the simultaneous effects of the other independent
variables. Physical activity participation (dependent variable) was regressed on the inde-
pendent variables entered in the following blocks: (1) age and gender; (2) actual barriers;
(3) perceived barriers; (4) self-efficacy; and (5) interactions between gender and per-
ceived barriers, and interactions between gender and self-efficacy.

FINDINGS

Level of Participation

The mean number of days per week participating in vigorous physical activity is high-
est for outside-of-school activities (M = 2.9, SD = 2.2), compared with physical education
classes (M = 2.2, SD = 1.7) and other school-related activities (M = 1.5, SD = 1.9).

Bivariate Predictors of Participation

Self-efficacy to participate despite external barriers is significantly and positively cor-

related with physical activity, most strongly in other school (r = .22) and outside-of-
school (r = .28) settings. Conversely, self-efficacy to participate despite internal barriers
is significantly and negatively correlated with physical activity participation, especially
in other school (r = –.17) and outside-of-school (r = –.24) settings. These results indicate
some support (self-efficacy despite external barriers) for Hypothesis 1.
Perceived barriers’ factors are significantly correlated with participation in vigorous
physical activity, in some instances. The internal barriers’ factor is negatively correlated
with participation in both physical education classes (r = –.08) and outside-of-school set-
tings (r = –.22). The external barriers’ factor is significantly correlated with participation
only in the case of other school activity, and in a positive direction (r = .09). These find-
ings provide some support for Hypothesis 2.
In considering the relationship of actual barriers to participation, the number of home-
work hours is significantly and negatively correlated with participation in two (other

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

18 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

Table 2. Correlations of Participation in Vigorous Physical Activity With

Independent Variables

Physical Education Other Outside

Class School School
Age –.20*** –.05 –.08*
Gender (female) –.09** –.17*** –.21***
Homework hours –.03 –.07* –.07*
Work hours .01 .05 .05
TV hours .04 –.02 –.02
Strain—social .03 .01 –.06
Strain—family/school –.02 –.05 –.08*
Perceived barriers—internal –.08* –.04 –.22***
Perceived barriers—external .01 .09** –.04
Self-efficacy—external .10** .22*** .28***
Self-efficacy—internal –.11*** –.17*** –.24***

NOTE: The analysis was based on pairwise deletion of missing cases. Ns ranged from 905 to
1,004.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

school and outside of school) of the three settings. However, the strength of these relation-
ships is low. Neither the number of hours of part-time work nor the number of hours
watching television is significantly correlated with participation. Moreover, life strain
factors are not consistently correlated with participation. Family and school strain is sig-
nificantly, but weakly, correlated with participation in vigorous physical activity (outside
of school). Thus, there is very limited support for Hypothesis 3.
Age is negatively and significantly correlated with vigorous physical activity in two of
the three settings (see Table 2). Gender and physical activity participation are also
related—female students participate less frequently than male students, especially in
other school (not physical education class) and outside-of-school activities. These find-
ings support Hypothesis 4.

Multiple Regression Results

Results from the multiple regression analysis indicate some support for Hypothesis 5.
Table 3 shows the results of hierarchical multiple regression, upon completion of all
stages of block entry.
Age remains a significant predictor of vigorous physical activity in the three settings,
especially in physical education classes. Older students are less likely to participate than
are younger students. The effects of gender are also significant in two of the three settings
(other school and outside of school), with female students less likely to engage in physical
activity than male students.
Of the actual barriers, only the social strain factor is a significant predictor of participa-
tion (only in physical education classes), but in the opposite direction (positive) to that
hypothesized. The hours of part-time work, homework, and television watching were not
significant predictors of participation.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 19

Table 3. Predictorsa of Vigorous Physical Activity

Physical Education Other Outside

Class School School
(n = 729) (n = 722) (n = 723)
Age –.21*** –.08* –.08*
Gender (female) –.07 –.15*** –.19***
Strain—social .09* .06 .06
Strain—family/school .01 .01 .02
Homework hours –.01 –.04 –.06
Part-time work hours –.01 .03 .03
TV hours .03 –.05 –.04
Perceived barriers—internal .03 –.09 –.33**
Perceived barriers—external –.11 .13 .14
SE—external barriers –.04 .54*** .41**
SE—internal barriers –.08 .14 –.01
Interaction—barriers (internal) and gender –.11 –.14 .19
Interaction—barriers (external) and gender .11 –.08 –.16
Interaction—SE (external) and gender .10 –.37** –.22
Interaction—SE (internal) and gender –.01 –.19 –.11
Adjusted R 2 .06*** .08*** .17***

NOTE: The analysis was based on listwise deletion of missing cases.

a. Effects of the predictors are shown as betas.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The perceived barriers’ factors are predictive of participation in vigorous physical

activity in one instance—perceived internal barriers are significant predictors of outside-
of-school participation.
Self-efficacy regarding dealing with external barriers is a significant predictor of par-
ticipation in other school and outside-of-school settings, but not of activity in physical
education classes. Self-efficacy regarding dealing with internal barriers is not a signifi-
cant predictor of participation in any of the settings when the interaction terms are
included in the analysis.
Only one interaction is a significant predictor of physical activity participation—the
interaction between self-efficacy regarding external barriers and gender is a significant
predictor of participation in other school activity.
The variance explained (adjusted) in the three models ranged from a low of 6% in the
case of physical education classes to 17% in outside-of-school activity.

DISCUSSION

Three settings for participation in vigorous physical activity were used in the
study—physical education classes, other school-related activities, and outside-of-school
activities. On the basis of the findings, students indicated a higher level of participation in
outside-of-school activity compared with the other two settings. This is partly because
there are more days available for activity outside of school (7 days) than in school (5

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

20 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

days), and because some students may be active on weekends as well as weekdays. Also,
in some schools, physical education classes may not be offered every day—they may only
meet two or three times each week (the frequency of classes was not assessed in the
study).
The findings provide some empirical support for social cognitive theory as a frame-
work for predicting health-related behavior and, specifically, for the relationship between
self-efficacy and participation in vigorous physical activity. While several previous stud-
ies of adults have found physical activity self-efficacy and participation to be related,
there has been little research on this relationship between children and adolescents. Thus,
it appears that the relationship between physical activity self-efficacy and participation is
robust for various age groups. Moreover, this relationship is maintained across two of the
three settings—other (not physical education classes) within-school activity and outside-
of-school activity.
According to self-efficacy theory, self-efficacy regarding participation despite both
internal and external barriers should be positively (and significantly) related to actual par-
ticipation. However, the findings showed this to be the case only for self-efficacy regard-
ing external barriers. Since previous studies of the factor structure of physical activity
self-efficacy do not identify these specific dimensions (regarding participation despite
internal or external barriers), it is not possible to determine if this relationship is stable or
related to characteristics of the specific sample used.
To examine possible explanations for differences in the relationship of the two factors
to physical activity, we conducted an analysis of the predictors of self-efficacy regarding
external barriers and of self-efficacy regarding internal barriers. A regression analysis
revealed that perceived internal barriers were a significant predictor of both self-efficacy
regarding external barriers and self-efficacy regarding internal barriers. While gender
was a significant predictor of self-efficacy regarding internal barriers, perceived external
barriers were not predictive of either self-efficacy factors. Thus, it does not appear that
self-efficacy is predictive of current physical activity only in instances in which the rele-
vant perceived barriers are present.
Another possible explanation for the findings is that individuals believing they are
efficacious despite internal barriers to participate are different in some ways than those
believing themselves to be efficacious regarding external barriers. The findings indicate
that self-efficacy and gender interact in some settings to influence participation. Possibly,
additional, unmeasured factors—such as social support, enjoyment, or other types of actual
barriers such as lack of safety, transportation, and parental permission to participate—
would account for differences in predicting physical activity participation between the
two self-efficacy factors.
The notion of perceived barriers, derived from the Health Belief Model, is also con-
ceptually related to social cognitive theory, as it pertains to the relationship between the
environment and personal factors (perceptions). While perceived barriers’ factors were
generally predictive of participation in vigorous physical activity in bivariate analysis, the
effects were greatly diminished in the multiple regression analysis. Only the internal bar-
riers’ factor was a significant predictor of participation—and only for outside-of-school
activities. Surprisingly, the perceived external barriers’ factor was not significantly
related to physical activity participation. Possibly, many of those citing perceived exter-
nal barriers are already quite active and they envision external barriers as obstacles to fur-
ther (rather than current) activity. These findings suggest limited support for one compo-
nent (perceived barriers) of the Health Belief Model.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 21

Those variables representing actual barriers proved to be generally unrelated to par-

ticipation in vigorous physical activity in the various settings. Life strain factors were not
shown to affect participation in the hypothesized direction, based on the multiple regres-
sion results. One possible explanation for this finding is that the various life strain meas-
ures represented sources of stress (stressors), rather than stress. Although one would
expect a strong positive correlation between the intensity of stressors and the intensity
of stress, it is possible that stress would be more predictive of actual participation than
stressors.
Only in one instance was strain a significant predictor of physical activity—social
strain was found to be positively related to participation in vigorous physical activity in
physical education classes. While the direction of this relationship is in the opposite
direction to that hypothesized, this may be partly due to the likelihood that many partici-
pants in mandatory physical education classes (usually in Grade 9 in Ontario) may,
indeed, feel concern about weight, clothes, and opinions of friends as sources of stress
directly related to their participation in class.
Another surprising finding in this study was that competing demands on time, such as
hours of homework, part-time work, and television watching, were unrelated to participa-
tion in vigorous physical activity. While one would expect such activities as watching
television to have a detrimental effect on physical activity participation, this is apparently
not the case, and additional studies have produced similar findings.56
The effects of age and gender on participation in vigorous physical activity are consis-
tent with findings from other studies.3,4 Older students are less likely to engage in physical
activity, perhaps because of an increase in academic and social demands, and various rites
of passage associated with advancing age—such as getting a driver’s license. Lower lev-
els of physical activity among female students may be partly due to gender differences in
socialization. While societal norms surrounding these differences appear to be changing,
the more historical effects have apparently persisted.
The combined effects of the model—composed of self-efficacy, perceived barriers,
actual barriers, age, gender, and the interactions—did not explain a large amount of vari-
ance in participation in vigorous physical activity in the three settings. The greatest
amount of variance explained and the strongest bivariate and predictive relationships
were for physical activity outside of school. This is important since outside-of-school
activity reflects decisions concerning the allocation of discretionary time, which has par-
allels in adult life. Also, participation in school-related physical activity depends largely
on such (unmeasured) factors as opportunities, availability of facilities and equipment,
and access to supervisory personnel.
Because the study was based on a cross-sectional sample survey, it is not possible to
determine the causal direction of the significant relationships and effects. It is easier to
argue for a causal relationship between characteristics such as age or gender and physical
activity participation than for more cognitive or contextual factors such as self-efficacy or
perceived barriers. Further research on these relationships should consider the use of lon-
gitudinal designs to provide more insight on the question of causal direction.
One of the most interesting questions concerning self-efficacy is the degree to which it
is generalizable, or transferable, across settings and situations.31 Results of the study
reported here suggest that there is some transferability across similar settings—other
school-related activities and outside-of-school activities. Maibach and Murphy refer to
this as “within domain generality.”57 However, since the study did not examine the rela-
tionship between self-efficacy and additional health-related behaviors such as smoking,
drinking, and sexual health practices (“between domain generality”), it is not possible to

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

22 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

examine this question further. Nevertheless, the issue remains an important area for
future research on self-efficacy.

Implications for Health Education and Health Promotion

The concept of self-efficacy is inherently positive in that it deals with issues of per-
ceived confidence, competence, and capability in specific situations. Since self-efficacy
has been shown to be related to physical activity participation in this and previous studies,
these findings have important implications for health education and health promotion. In
relation to school-related programs, further research is needed to determine if social cog-
nitive theory can be used as a theoretical framework underlying interventions designed to
increase physical activity participation through changes in self-efficacy.58,59
At a collective level, the findings support the development, by school boards and com-
munity health, fitness, and recreation organizations, of policies to support regular physi-
cal activity both within schools and the larger community. Such policies should attempt to
enhance opportunities for participation by children and teenagers, with particular con-
cern for the encouragement and support of continuing physical activity among middle
and older teens, and among females. The findings also suggest that the reduction of
barriers to maintenance or increases in physical activity levels should be included in
such policies.

References

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, 1996.
2. Sallis J: Epidemiology of physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr 33:403-408, 1993.
3. Heath G, Pratt M, Warren C, Kann L: Physical activity patterns in American high school stu-
dents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 148:1131-1136, 1994.
4. Allison K, Adlaf E: Age and gender differences in physical inactivity among Ontario teenagers.
Can J Public Health 88:177-180, 1997.
5. Dishman R, Dunn A: Exercise adherence in children and youth: Implications for adulthood, in
Dishman R, Dunn A (eds.): Exercise Adherence: Its Impact on Public Health. Champaign, IL,
Human Kinetics, 1988, pp. 155-200.
6. Reynolds K, Killen J, Bryson S, Maron D, Taylor C, Maccoby N, Farquhar J: Psychosocial pre-
dictors of physical activity in adolescents. Prev Med 19:541-551, 1990.
7. Pate P, Pratt M, Blair S, Haskell W, Macera C, Bouchard C, et al: Physical activity and public
health: A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and the American College of
Sports Medicine. JAMA 273:402-407, 1995.
8. Blair S, Kohl H, Paffenbarger R, Clark D, Cooper K, Gibbons L: Physical fitness and all-cause
mortality: A prospective study of healthy men and women. JAMA 262:2395-2401, 1989.
9. Powell K, Blair S: The public health burdens of sedentary living habits: Theoretical but realistic
estimates. Med Sci Sports Exerc 26:851-856, 1994.
10. Blair S, Brill P, Barlow C: Physical activity and disease prevention, in Quinney H, Gauvin L,
Wall A (eds.): Toward Active Living: Proceedings of the International Conference on Physical
Activity, Fitness, and Health. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1994, pp. 25-31.
11. Lee I, Hsieh C, Paffenbarger R: Exercise intensity and longevity in men: The Harvard Alumni
Health Study. JAMA 273:1179-1184, 1995.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

 Allison et al. / Self-Efficacy 23

12. Haskell W: Physical activity and health: Need to define the required stimulus. Am J Cardiol
55:4D-9D, 1985.
13. Stephens T: Physical activity and mental health in the United States and Canada: Evidence from
four population surveys. Prev Med 17:35-47, 1988.
14. Leith L: Foundations of Exercise and Mental Health. Morgantown, WV, Fitness Information
Technology, 1994.
15. Keays J, Allison K: The effects of regular moderate to vigorous physical activity on student out-
comes: A review. Can J Public Health 86:62-65, 1995.
16. Stephens T, Craig C: The Well-Being of Canadians: Highlights of the 1988 Campbell’s Survey.
Ottawa, Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, 1990.
17. Kemper H: The natural history of physical activity and aerobic fitness in teenagers, in Dishman
R (ed.): Advances in Exercise Adherence. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics, 1994, pp. 293-318.
18. Dishman R, Sallis J, Orenstein D: The determinants of physical activity and exercise. Public
Health Rep 100:158-171, 1985.
19. Godin G, Shephard R: Use of attitude-behaviour models in exercise promotion. Sports Med
10:103-121, 1990.
20. Sallis J, Hovell M: Determinants of exercise behavior. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 18:307-330, 1990.
21. Sallis J, Hovell M, Hofstetter C, Faucher P, Elder J, Blanchard J, Caspersen C, Powell K, Chris-
tenson G: A multivariate study of determinants of vigorous exercise in a community sample.
Prev Med 18:20-34, 1989.
22. Sallis J, Hovell M, Hofstetter C, Barrington E: Explanation of vigorous physical activity during
two years using social learning variables. Soc Sci Med 34:25-32, 1992.
23. Godin G, Shephard R: Psychosocial factors influencing intentions to exercise of young students
from grades 7 to 9. Res Q Exerc Sport 57:41-52, 1986.
24. Greenockle K, Lee A, Lomax R: The relationship between selected student characteristics and
activity patterns in a required high school physical education class. Res Q Exerc Sport 61:59-
69, 1990.
25. Ferguson K, Yesalis C, Pomrehn P, Kirkpatrick M: Attitudes, knowledge and beliefs as predic-
tors of exercise intent and behavior in schoolchildren. J Sch Health 59:112-115, 1989.
26. Zakarian J, Hovell M, Hofstetter C, Sallis J, Keating K: Correlates of vigorous exercise in a pre-
dominantly low SES and minority high school population. Prev Med 23:314-321.
27. Bandura A: Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1977.
28. Bandura A: Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1986.
29. Gecas V: The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annu Rev Sociol 15:291-316, 1989.
30. Allison K: Theoretical issues concerning the relationship between perceived control and pre-
ventive health behaviour. Health Educ Res 6:141-151, 1991.
31. Strecher V, DeVellis B, Becker M, Rosenstock I: The role of self-efficacy in achieving health
behavior change. Health Educ Q 13:73-91, 1986.
32. Hofstetter C, Sallis J, Hovell M: Some health dimensions of self-efficacy: Analysis of theoreti-
cal specificity. Soc Sci Med 31:1051-1056, 1990.
33. Sallis J, Pinski R, Grossman R, Patterson T, Nader P: The development of self-efficacy scales
for health-related diet and exercise behaviors. Health Educ Res 3:283-292, 1988.
34. McAuley E, Jacobson L: Self-efficacy and exercise participation in sedentary adult females. Am
J Health Prom 5:185-191, 1991.
35. Dwyer JM, Allison KR, Makin S: Internal structure of a measure of self-efficacy in physical
activity among high school students. Soc Sci Med, 46:1175-1182, 1998.
36. Hovell M, Sallis J, Hofstetter C, Spry V, Faucher P, Caspersen C: Identifying correlates of walk-
ing for exercise: An epidemiologic prerequisite for physical activity promotion. Prev Med
18:856-866, 1989.
37. McAuley E: The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behavior in middle-
aged adults. J Behav Med 15:65-88, 1992.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015

24 Health Education & Behavior (February 1999)

38. Becker M, Haefner D, Kasl S, Kirsht J, Maiman L, Rosenstock I: Selected psychosocial models
and correlates of individual health-related behaviors. Med Care 15:27-48, 1977.
39. Strecher V, Rosenstock I: The Health Belief Model, in Glanz K, Lewis F, Rimer B (eds.): Health
Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 41-59.
40. Janz N, Becker M: The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Educ Q 11:1-47, 1984.
41. Norman R: The Nature and Correlates of Health Behavior (Health Promotion Studies Series
No. 2). Ottawa, Health and Welfare Canada, 1986.
42. Wankel L, Mummery W: Factors Related to Intention to Be Physically Active: Information
From the Campbell’s Survey of Well-Being. Paper presented at the 1992 International Confer-
ence on Physical Activity, Fitness, and Health, Toronto, May 1992.
43. Slenker S, Price J, Roberts S, Jurs S: Joggers versus nonexercisers: An analysis of knowledge,
attitudes and beliefs about jogging. Res Q Exerc Sport 55:371-378, 1984.
44. Yoshida K, Allison K, Osborn R: Social factors influencing perceived barriers to physical exer-
cise among women. Can J Public Health 79:104-108, 1988.
45. Warwick D, Lininger C: The Sample Survey: Theory and Practice. New York, McGraw-Hill,
1975.
46. Green L, Lewis F: Measurement and Evaluation in Health Education and Health Promotion.
Palo Alto, CA, Mayfield, 1986.
47. Stephens T, Jacobs D, White C: A descriptive epidemiology of leisure-time physical activity.
Public Health Rep 100:147-158, 1985.
48. Heath G, Pate R, Pratt M: Measuring physical activity among adolescents. Public Health Rep
108:42-46, 1993.
49. Taylor H, Jacobs D, Schucker B, Knudsen J, Leon A, Debacker G: A questionnaire for the
assessment of leisure time physical activities. J Chron Dis 31:741-755, 1978.
50. Jacobs D, Ainsworth B, Hartman T, Leon A: A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used
physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exerc 25:81-91, 1993.
51. American School Health Association, Association for the Advancement of Health Education,
Society for Public Health Education: The National Adolescent Student Health Survey: A Report
on the Health of America’s Youth, Oakland, Third Party Publishing, 1989.
52. American College of Sports Medicine: Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription (4th
ed.). Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1991.
53. Allison K, Adlaf E, Mates D: Life strain, coping, and substance use among high school students.
Addic Res 5:177-180, 1997.
54. Tabachnick B, Fidell L: Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd ed.). New York, HarperCollins, 1995.
55. Streiner D, Norman G: Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development
and Use. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 1989.
56. Taras H, Sallis J, Patterson T, Nader P, Nelson J: Television’s influence on children’s diet and
physical activity. Dev Behav Pediatr 10:176-180, 1989.
57. Maibach E, Murphy D: Self-efficacy in health promotion research and practice: Conceptualiza-
tion and measurement. Health Educ Res 10:37-50, 1995.
58. Edmundson E, Parcel G, Feldman H, Elder J, Perry C, Johnson C, Williston B, Stone E, Yang M,
Lytle L, Webber L: The effects of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health
upon psychosocial determinants of diet and physical activity behavior. Prev Med 25:442-454,
1996.
59. Calfas K, Sallis J, Oldenburg B, Ffrench M: Mediators of change in physical activity following
an intervention in primary care: PACE. Prev Med 26:297-304, 1997.

Downloaded from heb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA on January 29, 2015