Page 94 - Physical activity in recipients of solid organ transplantation - Edwin J. van Adrichem

Chapter 5
recipients assessment in clinical practice it is recommended to look into the speci
c
motivator item endorsed within this component to assess the main element within the
component.
From the original 31 barrier items, nine were determined as not being part of the
component structure due to either non-signi
21 motivator items, two could not be included in the component structure.
structure, therefore, results in a less complete picture because it does not encompass all
possible barriers to and motivators of physical activity.

cant or minimal loadings. From the original

e component

e items that were not included
possibly belong to constructs that are insu

ciently represented in the other questions in
the questionnaire and thereby do not form a speci

c construct. However, these barrier
items are indicated only by a small proportion of participants and therefore appear to be of
restricted importance to the population under study. Out of the nine barrier items that
were not part of the component structure, seven are mentioned as a barrier by fewer than
20% of the respondents, and fewer than 1% of those respondents indicated these items as
being a barrier ‘very much’ (data not shown).
respondents.

e remaining two barrier items (

nancial
resources and bad weather) are cited as being a barrier ‘very much’ by fewer than 5% of the
e motivator item ‘belief in one’s ability to be physically active’, that was not
part of the component structure, could re
ect exercise self-e

cacy which is a highly
relevant item in physical activity behavior.1

Barriers and Motivator Questionnaire. As exercise self-e
8–21
is construct is not well represented in the

cacy is an important construct in
activity behavior1

8,22,23
, it is recommended to assess this construct separately with the
appropriate tools.
e explained variance of the barrier component structure is limited (28.9%) and
plausibly related to not including several barrier items in the component structure.

e nine
items that were not included do not constitute a subscale due to low correlation with other
items in the questionnaire (<.30, Appendix Table 1).

is indicates that these items are
likely to measure isolated barriers. In clinical application the questionnaire can be used
with its component structure only for general assessment of the most common barriers or
the four subscales can be complemented with the individual questions that were not
clustered within a subscale to generate a full overview.

e latter will result in an indication
of the constructs experienced by a recipient and an indication of the most salient isolated
barriers.

e use of the questionnaire can facilitate discussion of the subject in consultation
24
and guide possible referral to allied health care professionals.

e overall scale values for the internal consistency in this current study were
comparable with earlier reported values (
12
An overall scale
can be divided into multiple subscales.
well as for an entire group.

is a
opportunities to eliminate barriers or to facilitate motivators.
alpha
alpha
for motivators).
= .86 versus .88 for barriers, .91 versus .90
is used as a one-dimensional measure of the
internal consistency of the questionnaire. However, it is recommended to calculate internal
consistency for individual subscales if several components exist within a questionnaire.
From the component analysis, it is evident that both the barrier and the motivator section

e subdivision into multiple subscales can provide
additional insight into speci

c domains of barriers or motivators for individual recipients as

ords the possibility to look into one speci

c domain and

e usability of the
92.