Cited by 90Physical Activity and HealthBehavioral Health and InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Enhancing Theoretical Fidelity: An E-mail—Based Walking Program Demonstration

Rovniak, Liza S., Hovell, Melbourne F., Wojcik, Janet R., Winett, Richard A., Martinez-Donate, Ana P.·2005·American Journal of Health Promotion

Abstract

Purpose.: To examine the extent to which theoretical fidelity, or precision in replicating theory-based recommendations, influenced the effectiveness of two walking programs based on social cognitive theory (SCT). Design.: Two-group randomized controlled trial. Setting.: College town in Virginia. Subjects.: Sixty-one sedentary adult women. Intervention.: Two 12-week e-mail–based walking programs were compared. The high fidelity program was designed to more precisely follow SCT recommendations for operationalizing mastery procedures than the low fidelity program, which was designed to simulate how mastery procedures were operationalized in most existing SCT-based physical activity programs. Treatment contact and walking prescription were controlled across groups. Measures.: The 1-mile walk test of physical fitness and SCT measures were completed at baseline and posttest. Self-reported walking quantity was assessed at baseline, posttest, and 1-year follow-up. Walking logs were completed during the program. Process evaluation measures were completed at posttest. Results.: Fifty women completed the study. The high fidelity group improved more than twice as much as the low fidelity group on 1-mile walk test time (86 vs. 32 seconds, p < .05), goal setting (p < .05), and positive outcome expectations (p < .05) and reported greater program satisfaction (p < .01). Conclusion.: Theoretical fidelity could advance the quality of physical activity interventions, which have often shown small effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4278/0890-1171-20.2.85

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rovniak, L. S., Hovell, M. F., Wojcik, J. R., Winett, R. A., & Martinez-Donate, A. P.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • Liza S. Rovniak, PhD; Melbourne F. Hovell, PhD, MPH; and Ana P. Martinez-Donate, PhD, are with the Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. Janet R. Wojcik, PhD; and Richard A. Winett, PhD, are with the Center for Research in Health Behavior, Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia
Corresponding author
Rovniak, Liza S.
Venue
American Journal of Health Promotion
Published
2005-11
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
85-95
ISSN
  • 0890-1171 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-6602
OpenAlex
W2175835050
Cited by
90
References
86
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Health Promotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
social cognitive theory, walking program, sedentary women, physical activity interventions, mastery orientation, goal setting, outcome expectations, program satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Middle Aged, Self Disclosure, Virginia, Walking, Self Efficacy, Electronic Mail

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review