Analysis of self-reported instruments for assessing potentially problematic exercise behaviours

• Autores: Adrián Paterna Roda
• Directores de la Tesis: Álvaro Sicilia Camacho (dir. tes.)
• Lectura: En la Universidad de Almería ( España ) en 2022
• Idioma: inglés
• Número de páginas: 429
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Análisis de los instrumentos autorreportados de evaluación de las conductas de ejercicio potencialmente problemáticas
• Enlaces
  • Tesis en acceso abierto en: riUAL
• Resumen

  • spite of the proven health benefits of exercise, research has shown that some people persist in exercising despite the physical, psychological, social and emotional problems arising as a result of this behaviour. The present PhD thesis was aimed at filling some of the existing gaps concerning the self-report psychometric instruments proposed for assessing problematic exercise. In particular, by examining (i) the theoretical conceptualisations on which these instruments are based (Study 1), (ii) the specific components covered by each of them (Study 2), and (iii) the reliability of their scores (Study 3). These objectives were addressed through the use of systematic review and meta-analysis techniques. Findings from Study 1 showed that self-report instruments of problematic exercise can be classified into up to five categories depending on whether this phenomenon is conceptualized as (i) the upper end of an exercise continuum, (ii) a means of regulating body size and weight, (iii) a form of dependence, (iv) a behavioural addiction. A fifth category comprised those instruments with no clear conceptualisation. Findings from Study 2 showed a lack of consensus in the operational definition of the range of components included in the instruments under review. According to their frequency of inclusion in the instruments, these components can be classified as core criteria (i.e., salience, withdrawal, and mood modification) or candidate components (i.e., conflict, and continuance despite problems) of problematic exercise. Components specific to some of the instruments are tolerance, relapse, impaired control, craving, cross-tolerance, exercise volume (e.g., in terms of time, duration, or frequency), and certain exercise motives (e.g., social relatedness, and health or body image improvement). Findings from Study 3 showed the alpha estimates of both global and subscales test scores of currently available selfreport instruments of problematic exercise (i) to vary largely not just from one to the other but also across different applications, and (ii) as being particularly sensitive to the characteristics of the study population. Several deficiencies in terms of reliability reporting were also found, these consisting in (i) the frequent omission of reliability estimates for the data at hand, and (ii) the (almost exclusive) employment of alpha without proper testing of the assumptions necessary for its unbiased use. The knowledge gained from these three studies provide the basis for future research aimed at achieving a twofold objective. Firstly, to reach consensus on both a definition and the very precise components underpinning problematic exercise that allows for qualifying certain patterns of exercise behaviour as inherently problematic. Secondly, to provide a strong evidence base for the reliability of the self-reported instruments assessing problematic exercise. In the light of the findings, several recommendations are provided for the purpose of improving reliability reporting practices in quantitative primary research within the field of problematic exercise.