Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis

Christopher A Yao; Ryan E Rhodes

doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0163-y

Review
Open Access

Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis

Christopher A Yao¹Email author and
Ryan E Rhodes¹

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity201512:10

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0163-y

Received: 7 August 2014
Accepted: 6 January 2015
Published: 11 February 2015

Abstract

Objective

Physical activity (PA) has a profound impact on health and development in children. Parental behaviors (i.e., modeling and support) represent an obvious important factor in child PA. The purpose of this paper was to provide a comprehensive meta-analysis that overcomes the limitations of prior narrative reviews and quantitative reviews with small samples.

Methods

Ten major databases were used in the literature search. One-hundred and fifteen studies passed the eligibility criteria. Both fixed and random effects models with correction for sampling and measurement error were examined in the analysis. Moderator analyses investigating the effects of child’s developmental age, study design, parental gender, measurement of child PA, and quality rating were performed.

Results

Based on the random effects model, the results showed that parental modeling was weakly associated with child PA (summary r = .16, 95% CI .09-.24) and none of the proposed moderators were significant. Separate analyses examining the moderating effects of parental gender and boys’ PA found that that father-son PA modeling (r = .29, 95% CI .21-.36) was significantly higher compared to mother-son PA (r = .19, 95% CI .14-.23; p < .05). However, parental gender did not moderate the relationship between parental modeling and girls’ PA (p > .05). The random effects model indicated an overall moderate effect size for the parental support and child PA relationship (summary r = .38, 95% CI .30-.46). Here, the only significant moderating variable was the measurement of child PA (objective: r = .20, 95% CI .13-.26; reported: r = .46, 95% CI .37-.55; p < .01).

Conclusions

Parental support and modeling relate to child PA, yet our results revealed a significant degree of heterogeneity among the studies that could not be explained well by our proposed moderators.

Keywords

Preschool
Childhood
Adolescence
Physical activity
Parental support
Parental role modeling
Parental behaviours
Meta-analysis
Review

It has been widely acknowledged by health researchers that participation in regular physical activity (PA) is linked to various health benefits and prevention of chronic disease. In spite of the overwhelming evidence that supports an association between PA and health, much of the populace does not commensurate with the national recommendations. Particularly, many children in North America are insufficiently active to reap the health benefits associated with regular PA. A recent Canadian national survey estimated that 9% of boys and 4% of girls between the ages of six to nineteen met the current recommendations [1]. Likewise, data from the United States showed that more than half of the children surveyed were insufficiently active [2]. At this juncture, intervention efforts to improve child PA levels have produced very modest results [3]. Thus moving forward, it will be crucial to properly identify the key correlates in child and adolescent PA to further the planning and development of PA interventions [4].

Presently, a total of 14 review papers [5-18] and three reviews of reviews [19-21] have been published in this area. From these reviews, parental modeling of PA and parental support of child PA have emerged as major themes. However, many of these reviews have discordant findings. For instance, 12 review papers examining the relationship between parent and child PA have shown variable results [5-9,12-14,16,19-21]. Three of the 12 reviews do not support a link between parent PA and child PA [14,20,21], while eight reviews have suggested the association as inconclusive [5-7,9,12,13,17,19]. Unlike the findings for parental modeling and child PA, parental support has emerged as a consistent correlate of child and adolescent PA in a number of narrative reviews [6-9,11,12,14,16,18-21]. The more striking absence in this theme is the limited quantitative synthesis in order to provide a point-estimate of the parental support-PA relationship. Only one meta-analysis has examined parental support (r = .23), but it is several years old and was restricted to three studies [8].

Another pertinent issue that surrounds parental support as a correlate of child PA has been how support has been defined and measured. Parental support has often been measured as an omnibus of various support behaviours and has no consistent set of behaviours [22]. In some cases, researchers have grouped and measured multiple support behaviours as tangible (e.g., providing transportation, financial support) and intangible forms of support (e.g., praise and encouragement). Through these forms of measurement, it is unclear to which specific individual support behaviours may be important in child PA. A more comprehensive synthesis of these support factors is needed.

Finally, prior reviews on this topic have been restricted to very specific age-ranges, which reduces our understanding to whether modeling and support vary across the developmental spectrum. No prior meta-analyses have explored the parental correlates according to developmental stages (i.e., preschool, childhood, and adolescence). A meta-analysis is necessary to consolidate and clarify the overall information.

With these limitations in mind, the aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a cohesive and comprehensive examination of the parental correlates, and potential moderators, of child PA. Here, the five postulated moderators included the child’s developmental age, method in which child PA is measured (objective or reported), geographical location of the sample population, study design, and quality of the study. Moreover, we investigated the possibility of intergenerational gender interactions between parent and child behaviours. It was hypothesized that overall parental PA would have a negligible to small correlation with child and adolescent PA, explaining the prior inconsistencies among the narrative reviews; whereas overall parental support will have a small to medium correlation. Among the individual support behaviours, it was postulated that a small effect size will be found for the various support behaviours and child PA. Our analysis of intergenerational gender interactions between parental and child was considered exploratory.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

To ensure transparency and complete reporting, the protocols for this study were in accordance to the recommendations put forth by the PRISMA statement for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses [23]. Studies were included if: 1) children were between 2.5 and 18.0 years; 2) an assessment of parental/family support, individual parental support behaviour(s), or parental PA as the independent variable; 3) a measurement of children’s PA as the dependent variable; and 4) an effect size illustrating the relationship between independent and dependent variables or the availability of statistics to calculate an effect size (e.g., means and standard deviation). Studies were excluded from the review if: 1) social support measures consolidated parental sources with teachers, peers, or friends; 2) the study was qualitative; and 3) not published in English.

PA was defined as “any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure” [24]. This definition encompassed both structured (e.g., organized sports, lessons) and unstructured PA (e.g.. leisure-time PA, play). Encouragement to be active, parent–child co-activity, praising the child’s activity, watching the child be active, informing the child that they are performing well, telling the child that PA is beneficial, and providing transportation to PA venues were classified as parental support behaviours. Other behaviours such as supplying the child with PA equipment and financial support, and enrolling the child in PA programs were classified as individual parent support behaviours.

Search strategy

Publications from January 1970 to November 2014 were systematically reviewed for this paper (Figure 1). Ten databases were used to locate relevant articles: EBSCO (Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Health Source, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Sciences, SPORTDiscus), PubMed, and ISI Web of Science. The following key terms were used: physical activity, exercise, sport, adolescent, youth, children, preschool, parental support, parental physical activity, role modeling, parental influence, and parental correlates. One author conducted the search and manually cross-referenced studies to ensure saturation of the literature. The eligibility criteria and search strategy followed a protocol used in previously published meta-analyses and reviews [25,26]. The reference sections of reviews and individual studies were carefully inspected to locate any additional publications.

Screening

Using the inclusion criteria previously established by both reviewers, one reviewer initially screened citations based on the title and abstract. Potentially relevant abstracts were selected and the full article was located if it was deemed suitable for the study. A full consensus by the two reviewers was required in order for the studies to be included in the analysis.

Data abstraction

Information regarding authors, publication year, country, sample (number of participants, age, gender), study design (cross-sectional/prospective), measurement tools (i.e., PA and social support measures), reliability of the measures, parental gender, and reported effect sizes, were abstracted onto a Word document. Once the coded data was entered, the file was imported into the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 program for further analyses [27].

Analyses

Based on the hypothesized moderators, the studies included in the analysis were categorized and coded by developmental age (preschool 2–5.4 yrs, childhood 5.5-12.4 yrs, adolescence 12.5-18 yrs), geographical location (Australia & New Zealand, Asia, Canada, Europe, USA), study design (cross-sectional, prospective), type of PA measure used to determine child PA (objective: accelerometer, pedometer, heart rate monitor; reported), and quality (high, moderate, low). Upon further investigation of previous meta-analyses and reviews, some of the studies included did not appropriately categorize effect sizes that represented the overall effect sizes for parental-child PA variables. For instance, samples only examining girls’ or boys’ PA were previously amalgamated into overall child associations rather than conducted in separate analyses. In our analyses, the correlates for boys, girls, and mixed samples were abstracted, categorized, and analyzed separately.

In the case that more than one type of PA measure was reported (ex. overall PA levels versus moderate to vigorous PA), the variable that best reflected the national recommendations for PA (i.e., moderate to vigorous PA) was incorporated into the analysis. Studies that incorporated a family support measure were included in the analysis.

To assess the potential risk of bias and methodological quality, each study was critically appraised using an adapted version of Downs and Black’s [28] 22-item assessment tool. This modified tool is comparable to the Cochrane Collaboration’s instrument for assessing risk of bias and has been used in several published reviews [25,26,29]. For the purposes of this study, items from the original checklist pertaining to experimental studies and items that were not applicable to this study were excluded. The adapted version utilized a 14-point scoring scheme, where each item was scored one point based on a yes (1) or no (0) response. Studies scoring 12–14 points were deemed high-quality studies, 8–11 points were regarded as moderate-quality studies, and lower quality studies were below 7 points. Studies that scored 4 points or less were excluded.

Effect sizes included in the analysis were further corrected for sample size and attenuated for potential measurement error. Correction of measurement error procedures was based on the reported reliabilities of the measures found in the study. In the case that the reliability of the measure was not detailed, an rxy = .70 was used. Based on previous publications, this reliability has been identified as a conservative, yet acceptable estimate for reliability [30]. For accelerometer measures that have obtained 4–9 days of data, the recommended reliability estimate of .80 was used [31]. No subsequent correction procedures were conducted for effect sizes derived from structural equation models or hierarchical linear models as these forms of analyses account for measurement error.

Both fixed and random effects models were used to determine the overall effect sizes for both uncorrected and corrected effect sizes. However, only corrected effect sizes from the random effects model will be discussed. The strength of the correlation was categorized based on Cohen’s recommendations [32]. According to these guidelines, a correlation of .09 or less was considered as a null effect, .10 a small effect, .30 a medium effect, and .50 a large effect. In addition to the overall effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To determine heterogeneity among the effect sizes, a Q-statistic and I² was computed. The Q-statistic identifies whether the observed variance in effect sizes is no greater than that expected by sampling error alone, whereas the I² denotes the dispersion. For the purposes of this study, I² values of 25 were categorized as having a low dispersal, 50 as a moderate dispersal, and 75 as a high dispersal. Moderator analyses investigating the effects of child’s developmental age, study design, parental gender, measurement of child PA, and quality rating were performed using the corrected r’s with fixed and random effects models. A minimum of 4 studies was required in each moderator analysis to deem it as a valid moderator. To identify the correlations between the intergenerational relationships between parent and child, separate analyses were used to examine whether the parents’ gender moderated boys’ and girls’ PA. To assess the extent of publication bias in our samples, Rosenthal’s classic fail-safe N [33] and Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill procedures [34,35] were conducted. All data was analyzed in February 2013 using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.

Results

A total of 2,293 potentially relevant citations were identified in the initial search. The screening procedures resulted in a total of 112 studies, with 11 studies extracted from the reference listing of the included articles (see Figure 1). Table 1 describes the characteristics of the 115 independent samples included for the investigation. Details of the included studies are presented in Tables 2,3,4,5,6 and 7. Duplicated studies were not included in the analysis.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of 112 studies investigating parental factors and child and adolescent physical activity (n = 115 independent samples)

Characteristic	Samples n (%)
Geographical location
Asia	4 (3)
Australia & New Zealand	11 (10)
Canada	8 (7)
Europe	31 (27)
South America	2 (2)
United States	59 (51)
Study design
Cross-sectional	94 (82)
Prospective	21 (18)
Physical activity measurement
Objective	31 (27)
Self-report	84 (73)
Quality rating
High	18 (16)
Moderate	84 (73)
Low	13 (11)
Developmental age
Preschool (2–5.4 yrs)	14 (12)
Childhood (5.5-12.4 yrs)	54 (47)
Adolescence (12.5-19.0 yrs)	47 (41)

Table 2

Studies and effect sizes of parental modeling and child and adolescent physical activity (k = 36)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental PA measure	Child PA measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Alderman et al. (2010) [36] USA	N = 70	PRO (1–9 yrs)	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & parental PA: r = .44, p < .05 at baseline; r = .08, p < .05 at follow-up	.37
	43 m, 26 f		.70* (97% respondents mothers)	.70*
	4-6 yrs at baseline; 5–15 yrs at follow-up		.70* (97% respondents mothers)	.70*	Mean r = .26
Ammouri et al. (2007) [37] USA	N = 284	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ PA & parental PA: β = .019	.03
	98 m, 186 f		GLTEQ	SAPAC
	15.3 yrs		.70*	.80
Berge et al. (2014) [38] USA	N = 200	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental MVPA β = .11, p < .05 (resident parent)	.15
	80 m, 120 f		GLTEQ	GLTEQ
	14.2 yrs		.75 (80% resident parent mothers)	.72
Dempsey et al. l(1993) [39] USA	N = 71	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & parents’ MVPA: β = −.17	-.24
	36 m, 35 f		Adapted GLTEQ	Adapted GLTEQ
	10.2 yrs		.70*	.70*
Dowda et al. (2011) [40] USA	N = 369	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (2 wks)	Children’s MVPA & parents’ PA: β = .002	.00
	179m, 194 f		Sport PA .67	.80*
	4.2 yrs		Non-sport PA .71	Direct observation
			(92% respondents mothers)	(OSRAC-P) Inter-observer .91
Dzewaltowski et al. (2008) [41] USA	N = 57	CS	Child reported (adapted from the YRBSQ)	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & parental PA: b = .22	.29
	18 m, 37 f		Child reported (adapted from the YRBSQ)	PDPAR
	12.4 yrs		.90	ICC = .64
Fredricks & Eccles (2005) [42] USA	N = 364	PRO (1 yr)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s sports PA & parents’ PA: r = .05 at baseline; r = .04 at follow-up	.06
	184 m, 180 f			Sports participation
	Ages 7.0-11.0 yrs at baseline			.70*	Mean r = .045
Heitzler et al. (2010) [43] USA	N = 720	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescents’ MVPA & parent PA: r = .07	.09
	352 m, 368 f		IPAQ	.80*
	14.7 yrs		.70*	.80*
Hendrie et al. (2011) [44] Australia	N = 106	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & parental PA: r = .145; partial r = .145	.19
	51 m, 55 f		Adapted from the Family Food Questionnaire α = .877 (92% respondents mothers)	CLASS
	8.3 yrs			.70*
Hennessy et al. (2010) [45] USA	N = 76	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (5 d) .80*	Children’s MVPA & parental explicit modeling: β = −.04, p = .70	-.06
	26 m, 50 f		ICC = .55 (96% respondents mothers)
	9.1 yrs		ICC = .55 (96% respondents mothers)
Keresztes et al. (2008) [46] Hungary	N = 548	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & parents’ PA: OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.15-3.80	.41
	301 m, 247 f		.70*	.70*
	12.2 yrs		.70*	.70*
Labree et al. (2014) [47] Netherlands	N = 1943	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s PA & parental modeling: r = .12, p < .05	.17
	970 m, 973 f		SQUASH	.70*
	8.4 yrs		.70* (mostly mothers)	.70*
Lei et al. (2004) [48] Taiwan	N = 798	CS	Child report	Child report	Adolescent MVPA & parental modeling: r = −.018, p = .616	-.02
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		Parent Socialization Scale	7-day PA Survey
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		.70*	.82
Loprinzi et al. (2010) [49] Austrailia	N = 156	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Child PA & parents’ PA: β = −.04, p = .64	-.06
	75 m, 81 f		IPAQ	PAEC-Q
	3.7 yrs		.70*	.70*
Loprinzi et al. (2013) [50] USA	N = 176	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & parent PA: β = .17, p < .05	.24
	82 m, 94 f		IPAQ	PAEC-Q
	4.0 yrs		.70* (85% respondents mothers)	.70*
McMurray et al. (1993) [51] USA	N = 1253	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parents’ exercise habits: r = .006, p = .845	.01
	589 m, 664 f		.70* (70% respondents mothers)	.70*
	8.8 yrs		.70* (70% respondents mothers)	.70*
Moore et al. (1991) [52] USA	N = 100	CS	Accelerometer (5 d)	Accelerometer (5 d)	Children’s PA & parents’ PA: OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.2-9.8; r = .46	.66
	63 m, 37 f		.70*	.70*
	10.4 yrs		.70*	.70*
Mota (1998) [53] Portugal	N = 45	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parents’ VPA: r = .14	.17
	N = 45		.88	.72	Children’s PA & parents’ MPA: r = .13
	18 m, 27 f				Children’s PA & parents’ MPA: r = .13
	10.1 yrs				Mean r = .135
Østbye et al. (2013) [54] USA	N = 208	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Children’s PA & parental modeling: r = .12	.15
	116 m, 92 f		Role modeling of PA	.80*
	116 m, 92 f		α = .80 (all mothers)
	2-5 yrs		α = .80 (all mothers)
Patnode et al. (2010) [55] USA	N = 294	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescents’ MVPA & parents’ PA: r = .003	.00
	149 m, 145 f		IPAQ	.80*
	15.4 yrs		.70*	.80*
Perusse et al. (1989) [56] Canada	N = 1610	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ PA (exercise) & parental PA: r = .09, p < .05 (n = 1039)	.10
	14.6 yrs		3-day activity record	3-day activity record
	14.6 yrs		.97	.91
Pfeiffer et al. (2009) [57] USA	N = 331	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (8–10 d)	Children’s MVPA & parents’ PA: r = −.04	-.05
	169 m, 162 f		.78 (94% respondents mothers)	.80*
	4.3 yrs		.78 (94% respondents mothers)	.80*
Poest et al. (1989) [58] USA	N = 514	CS	Parent self-report	Teacher report	Children’s PA & parents’ PA: r = .28, p = .045	.40
	269 m, 245 f		.70*	.70*
	Preschool children		.70*	.70*
Polley et al. (2005) [59] USA	N = 87	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parents’ PA: r = .11	.16
Polley et al. (2005) [59] USA	Children	CS	.70*	.70*	Children’s PA & parents’ PA: r = .11	.16
Ruiz et al. (2011) [60] USA	N = 106	CS	Accelerometer (7 d)	Accelerometer (7 d)	Children’s MPA & parents’ PA: r = .739, p < .0001	.59
	52 m, 54 f		.70* (97.2% respondents mothers)	.80*	Children’s VPA & parents’ PA: r = − .07, p > .05
	4.2 yrs		.70* (97.2% respondents mothers)	.80*	Mean r = .4128
Rutkowski et al. (2012) [61] USA	N = 94	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MPVA & parental PA: r = −.23, p < .05	.29
	56 m, 28 f		IPAQ	PACE + MVPA
	12.8 yrs		α = .80	ICC = .81
Sallis et al. (1988) [62] USA	N = 33	PRO (2.5 yrs)	Parent self-report	FATS	Children’s MPA & parents’ PA: β = .53, p < .01	.70
	13 m, 20 f		.70*	.81
	3.9 yrs		.70*	.81
Singh et al. (2009) [63] USA	N = 68288	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s VPA & parents’ PA: r = .24*	.34
Singh et al. (2009) [63] USA	Age range: 6–17 yrs	CS	.70*	.70*	*controlled for other covariates	.34
Trost et al. (2003) [64] USA	N = 380	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ PA & parental PA: β = .05, p = .28	.06
	171 m, 209 f		Test-retest	.79
	14.0 yrs		.78	.79
Vella et al. (2014) [65] Australia	N = 4042	PRO (2 yrs)	Parent self-report MVPA	Parent report	Children’s PA & parental MVPA: OR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p < .05; r = .01	.01
	2069 m, 1973 f		.70* (96% respondents mothers)	Organized sports participation
	8.3 yrs			Organized sports participation
	8.3 yrs			.70*
Welk et al. (2003) [66] USA	N = 994	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parent PA: r = .28	.38
	505 m, 489 f		.68 children	PAQ-C
	10.0 yrs		.68 boys	.75-.82
			.67 girls
			(82% respondents mothers)
Williams & Mummery (2011) [67] Australia	N = 295	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA & parents’ MVPA: adjusted OR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20	-.29
	111 m 184 f		Active Australia Survey	APARQ
	15.1 yrs		.70* (67% respondents mothers)	.70*
Zecevic et al. (2010) [68] Canada	N = 102	CS	Parent self-report	Parental report	Children’s PA & parental PA habits: OR = 1.620, p < .10; r = .1874	.27
	54 m, 48 f		.70* (96% respondents mothers)	.70*
	3.8 yrs		.70* (96% respondents mothers)	.70*
Zhao & Settles (2014) [69] USA	N = 1514	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s MPA & parental PA: β = −.15, p < .05	-.17
	763 m, 751 f		.70*	.70*	Children’s VPA & parental PA: β = −.09
	11.8 yrs				Children’s VPA & parental PA: β = −.09
	11.8 yrs				Mean β = −.12
Ziviani et al. (2005) [70] Australia	N = 50	CS	Parent self-report	Pedometer (4 d)	Children’s’ PA & parents’ PA: β = .23	.28
	26 m, 24 f		.97-1.00	.70*
	7.7 yrs		.97-1.00	.70*
Ziviani et al. (2008) [71] Australia	N = 59	CS	Parent self-report	Pedometer (4 d)	Children’s PA (weekday) & parents’ PA: r = .06	.16
	26 m, 33 f		.97-1.00	.70*	Children’s PA (weekend) & parents’ PA: r = .21
	8.9 yrs				Children’s PA (weekend) & parents’ PA: r = .21
	8.9 yrs				Mean r = .135

Note. *reliability not reported; APARQ = Adolescent Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; CLASS = Children’s Leisure Activities Study Survey; CS = cross-sectional; d = days; f = female; FATS = Fargo Activity Timesampling Survey; GLTEQ = Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire; IPAQ = International Physical Activity Questionnaire; PRO = prospective; m = male; MPA = moderate physical activity; MVPA = moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; OSRAC-P = Observational System for Recording Physical Activity in Children-Preschool Version; PA = physical activity; PAEC-Q = Physical Activity and Exercise Questionnaire for Children; SAPAC = Self-Administered Physical Activity Checklist; SQUASH = Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical activity; VPA = vigorous physical activity.

Table 3

Studies and effect sizes for parental support and child and adolescent physical activity (k = 34)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental support measure	Child physical activity measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Barr-Anderson et al. (2010) [72] USA	N = 73	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA and perceived parental support: β = .17, p < .05	.24
	18 m, 55 f		Parental Support – aggregated measure (encouragement, coactivity, transportation, watching, inform)	Adapted GLTEQ
	10.1 yrs		Child test-retest .88	Hard/strenuous test-retest .63
	10.1 yrs		Child test-retest .88	Moderate test-retest .52
Davison et al. (2012) [73] USA	N = 767	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA &parental support: r = .20, p < .01 (n = 355)	.27
	392 m, 375 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (logistic support, modeling, co-activity, encouragement)	.70*	Adolescent’s MVPA & parental support: r = .36, p < .01 (n = 412)	.49
	Age range: 6.0-12.0 yrs & 13.0-19.0 yrs		α = .78	.70*		.49
Dowda et al. (2011) [40] USA	N = 369	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (2 wk)	Children’s MVPA & parental support: β = .28	.34
	N = 369		Parental support – aggregated measure (encourage, coactivity, transportation, watching child, providing information)	.80*	Children’s MVPA & parental support: β = .28	.34
	175 m, 194 f			Direct observation (OSRAC-P)
	4.2 yrs			Direct observation (OSRAC-P)
	4.2 yrs		Test-retest .81 (92% respondents mothers)	Inter-observer .91
Hagger et al. (2009) [74]	N = 840	PRO (5 wks)	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA (UK; n = 210) & parental support: r = .47, p < .01	.55
4 countries: UK, Estonia, Finland, Hungary	380 m, 460 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (provision of opportunities, choices, and options to be active)	Adapted GLTEQ	Children’s MVPA (Estonia; n = 268) & parental support: r = .36, p < .01	.45
	Age range: 13.2-15.0 yrs		UK α = .96	UK .77	Children’s MVPA (Finland; n = 127) & parental support: r = .41, p < .01	.51
			Estonian α = .94	Estonian .68	Children’s MVPA (Hungary; n = 235) & parental support: r = .20, p < .01	.26
			Finland α = .96	Finland .67
			Hungary α = .90	Hungary .67
Hamilton & White (2008) [75] Australia	N = 423	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental support: r = .37, p < .001	.53
	172 m, 251 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (co-activity, watch, encouragement, praise, transportation)	.70*
	13.5 yrs		.70*	.70*
Heitzler et al. (2006) [76] USA	N = 3114	CS	Parent reported	Child self-report	Children’s organized PA & parental support: OR = 1.65, 95% CI 1.45-1.88, p < .001	.30
	Age range: 9.0-13.0 yrs		Parental support – aggregated and individually reported (coactivity, watching child, & transportation)	Test-retest .64
	Age range: 9.0-13.0 yrs		Test-retest .65	Test-retest .64
Heitzler et al. (2010) [43] USA	N = 720	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental support: r = .19, p < .05	.24
	352 m, 268 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, coactivity, watch, praise) α = .80	.80*
	14.7 yrs			.80*
Hendrie et al. (2011) [44] Australia	N = 106	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & parental support: r = .162; r = .18 when controlled for parent demographic factors)	.22
	51 m, 55 f		Parental support – aggregate measure (watching, transportation)	CLASS
	8.3 yrs			.70*
	8.3 yrs		α = .79 (92% respondents mothers)	.70*
Hennessy et al. (2010) [45] USA	N = 76	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (5 d)	Children’s PA & logistical support: β = .18, p = .12	.26
	26 m, 50 f		Logistical support	.70*
	9.1 yrs		α = .67	.70*
Kim & Cardinal (2010) [77] Korea	N = 1347	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Adolescent PA & parental support: r = .19, p < .01	.22
	943 m, 404 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (e.g., encouragement)	GLTEQ
	16.4 yrs		Parental support – aggregated measure (e.g., encouragement)	Test-retest .86
	16.4 yrs		test-retest .83	Test-retest .86
Labree et al. (2014) [47] Netherlands	N = 1943	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & parental support: r = .21, p < .05	.31
	970 m, 973 f		Parental support	.70*
	8.4 yrs		α = .64 (respondents predominantly mothers)	.70*
Langer et al. (2014) [78] USA	N = 421	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Children’s MVPA & parental support: r = .20, p < .001	.25
	213 m, 208 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch)	.80*
	6.9 yrs		α = .77 (93% respondents mothers)	.80*
Lawman & Wilson (2014) [79] USA	N = 181	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescent’s MVPA & parental support: r = .09	.11
	72 m, 109 f		Parental support – aggregated measure	.80*
	13.3 yrs		α = .89	.80*
Lei et al. (2004) [48] Taiwan	N = 798	CS	Child report	Child report	Children’s MVPA & parental support: r = .12, p < .001	.17
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		Parental support	7-day PA survey
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		.75	.70*
Loprinzi & Trost (2010) [49] Australia	N = 156	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA (at home) & parental support: β = .16, p < .05	.12
	75 m, 81 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encourage, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform)	PAEC-Q (PA at home)	Children’s PA (daycare) & parental support: β = .01
	3.7 yrs		test-retest .81	.70*	Mean β = .09
				Accelerometer (2 d)
				(PA during daycare)
				.70*
Loprinzi et al. (2013) [49] USA	N = 176	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & parental support: β = .29, p < .05	.40
	N = 176		Parental support – aggregated measure (encourage, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform)	PAEC-Q
	82 m, 94 f
	4.0 yrs
	4.0 yrs		α = .75 (85% respondents mothers)	.70*
Ommundsen et al. (2006) [80] Norway	N = 760	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parental support: r = .40, p < .001	.57
	379 m, 381 f		Parental support - aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity)	PEACH
	9.0 & 15 yr olds		.70*	.70*
Østbyte et al. (2013) [54] USA	N = 208	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Children’s PA & parental support: r = .26, p < .05	.34
	116 m, 92 f		Parental support – aggregated measure	.80*
	2-5 yrs		α = .75 (all mothers)	.80*
Patnode et al. (2010) [55] USA	N = 294	CS	Child reported aggregate measures (encouragement, watch)	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental support: r = .15, p < .05	.19
	149 m, 145 f		α = .76	.80*
	15.4 yrs		α = .76	.80*
Pfeiffer et al. (2009) [57] USA	N = 331	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (8–10 d)	Children’s’ MVPA & family support: r = .04	.05
	169 m, 162 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform)	.80*
	169 m, 162 f		.81 (94% respondents mothers)
	4.3 yrs		.81 (94% respondents mothers)
Prochaska et al. (2002) [81] USA	N = 138	CS	Child report	Activity monitor (5 d)	Children’s PA (monitor) & parental support: r = .12	.15
	48 m, 90 f		Parental support – aggregated & individual measures: Encouragement, coactivity, transportation, watch, praise	.70*
	12.1 yrs
			ICC = .88
			α = .77
Schaben et al. (2006) [82] USA	N = 1995	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA (middle school) & parental support: r = .31	.44
	1033 m, 962 f		Parental support –aggregated measure (role modeling, encouragement, co-activity, facilitation)	PAQ	Adolescents’ MVPA (high school) & parental support: r = .38
	14.7 yrs		α = 81	Test-retest males	Mean r = .35
				.75
				Test-retest females .82
Schary et al. (2012) [83] USA	N = 195	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & parental support: r = .32, p < .001	.44
	N = 195		Parental support – aggregated & individual measures (encouragement, transportation, co-activity, watch, inform)	PAEC-Q
	90 m, 105 f			PAEC-Q
	4.0 yrs		α = .76 (86% respondents mothers)	.70*
Taylor et al., (2002) [84] USA	N = 509	CS	Child report	Child self-report & parent report	Children’s PA & family support: partial r = .43, p < .001 (<85^th percentile BMI); partial r = .13, p = .45 (>85^th percentile BMI)	.48
	231 m, 278 f		Family support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch)	.70*
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		α = .81		Mean r = .38
	Age range: 12–18 yrs		Test-retest .88		Mean r = .38
Trost et al. (2003) [64] USA	N = 380	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ PA & parental support: β = .24	.30
	171 m, 209 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform)	Test-retest .79
	14.0 yrs		α = .78
	14.0 yrs		Test-retest .81
Verloigne et al. (2014) [85] Australia	N = 134	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (4 d)	Adolescent MVPA & logistic support: r = .02	.03
	66 m, 68 f		Parental support (logistic support – transportation, financial support)	.70*
	14.1 yrs		α = .90 (84% respondents mothers)	.70*
Welk et al. (2003) [66] USA	N = 994	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & parental support: r = .51	.70
	505 m, 489 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, involvement, facilitation)	PAQ-C
	10.0 yrs		α = .76	.70*
Williams & Mummery (2011) [67] Australia	N = 295	CS	Parent report	Adolescent PARQ	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental support: OR = 7.38, 95% CI 2.98-18.29*	.95
	111 m, 184 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, watch, transportation, inform, co-activity)	.70*	*adjusted for other variables
	15.1 yrs		.70* (67% respondents mothers)	.70*	*adjusted for other variables
Zecevic et al. (2010) [68] Canada	N = 102	CS	Parent report	Parental report	Children’s PA & parental support: OR = 2.18, p < .10; r = .2976	.41
	54 m, 48 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform)	.70*
	3.8 yrs
	3.8 yrs		α = .75
Zhang et al. (2012) [86] USA	N = 285	CS	Child report	PAQ-C	Adolescent’s MVPA & parental support: r = .43, p < .01	.55
	142 m, 143 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, coactivity, transportation, praise)	.75
	13.4 yrs		.81	.75

Note. *reliability not reported; CLASS = Children’s Leisure Activities Study Survey; CS = cross-sectional; d = day; f = female; GLTEQ = Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire; m = males; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity; PA = physical activity; PAQ = Physical Activity Questionnaire; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children; PARQ = Physical Activity Recall Questionnaire; PEACH = Personal and Environmental Associations with Children’s Health; PAEC-Q = Physical Activity and Exercise Questionnaire for Children; PRO = prospective; OSRAC-P = Observational System for Recording Physical Activity in Children-Preschool Version; wk = week.

Table 4

Studies and effect sizes for parental modeling and girls' physical activity moderated by parental gender (k = 62)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental PA measure	Child PA measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Aarnio et al. (1997) [87] Finland	N = 3254	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (n = 1130) & fathers’ PA: r = .046, p < .01	.07
	1557 m, 1697 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (n = 1123) & mothers’ PA: r = .101, p < .01	.14
	16.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (n = 1123) & mothers’ PA: r = .101, p < .01	.14
Anderssen & Wold (1992) [88] Norway	N = 904	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .14, p < .01	.19
	498 m, 406 f		.70*	.78	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .14, p < .01	.19
	13.3 yrs		.70*	.78	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .14, p < .01	.19
Anderssen et al. (2006) [89] Norway	N = 380	PRO (8 yrs)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: β = .09	.12
	191 m, 189 f		.70*	.83	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: β = .05	.07
	13.3 yrs at baseline		.70*	.83	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: β = .05	.07
Bastos et al. (2008) [90] Brazil	N = 857	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = −.08	-.11
	411 m, 446 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = −.05	-.07
	Age range: 10–19 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = −.05	-.07
Bogaert et al. (2003) [91] Australia	N = 59	PRO (1 yr)	Parent self-report	Parent report	Girls’ MVPA & mothers PA: r = .44, p = .03	.47
	29 m, 30 f		Bouchard activity record .97	Bouchard activity record .91
	8.6 yrs at baseline		Bouchard activity record .97	Bouchard activity record .91
Campbell et al. (2001) [92] Canada	N = 153	PRO (12 yrs)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = .001	.00
	77 m, 76 f		.97	.91	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .008	.01
	13.5 yrs at baseline		.97	.91	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .008	.01
Davison et al. (2001) [93] USA	N = 197	PRO	Parent self-report	Parent report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = −.03 at baseline	-.05
	All females	(2 yrs)	.70*	α = .58	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .09 at baseline	.14
	5.4 yrs at baseline
	7.3 at follow-up
Davison et al. (2003) [94] USA	N = 180	CS	Parent report	PA measures as a composite score of CPA-short, an activity checklist, and PACER	Girls’ & fathers’ explicit modeling: r = .25, p < .01	.36
	All females		Explicit modeling	.70*	Girls’ PA and mothers’ explicit modeling: r = .08	.11
	9.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA and mothers’ explicit modeling: r = .08	.11
Deflandre et al. (2001) [95] France	N = 80	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = .30	.43
	36 m, 44 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .16	.23
	Age range: 11–16 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .16	.23
Deflandre et al. (2001) [96] France	N = 48	CS	Child report	Heart rate monitor (7 d)	Girls’ MVPA & fathers ‘PA: r = .35	.50
	26 m, 22 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .21	.30
	17.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .21	.30
Eriksson et al. (2008) [97] Sweden	N = 1124	CS	Baeke Questionnaire	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (sports) & fathers’ PA: crude OR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.2	.43
	553 m, 571 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: crude OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-4.5	.58
	12.0 yrs		.70*	.70*		.58
Fogelholm et al. (1999) [98] Finland	N = 271	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .24, p < .01	.34
	143 m, 128 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .28, p < .01	.40
	9.6 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .28, p < .01	.40
Fuemmeler et al. (2011) [99] USA	N = 45	CS	Accelerometer (3 d)	Accelerometer (3 d)	Girls’ MVPA (weekend) & fathers’ PA: r = .37	.47
	23 m, 22 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA (weekday) & fathers’ PA; r = .42, p < .05; r = .19	.96
	9.9 yrs				Mean r = .327
					Girls’ MVPA (weekday) & mothers’ PA: r = .70, p < .01; r = .64, p < .01
					Girls’ MVPA (weekend) & mothers’ PA: r = .67, p < .01
					Mean r = .670
Hinkley et al. (2012) [100] Australia	N = 705	CS	Parent self-report	Accelerometer (8 d)	Girls’ PA & father’s MPA: OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p < .05	.01
	366 m, 262 f		.70* (94% respondents mothers)	.80*	Girls’ PA & mother’s VPA: OR = 1.01, 95% CI .99-1.02	.01
	4.5 yrs		.70* (94% respondents mothers)	.80*	Girls’ PA & mother’s VPA: OR = 1.01, 95% CI .99-1.02	.01
Jacobi et al. (2011) [101] France	N = 630	CS	Parent self-report	Pedometer (7 d)	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .24	.34
	317 m, 313 f		MAQ	.70*
	Age range 8–18 yrs		Pedometer (7 d)
	Age range 8–18 yrs		.70*
Jago et al. (2014) [102] UK	N = 822	CS	Accelerometer (5 d)	Accelerometer (5 d)	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ MVPA: β = .07	.10
	436 m, 386 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ MVPA: β = .15	.21
	6.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ MVPA: β = .15	.21
Kahn et al. (2008) [103] USA	N = 12812	PRO (1 yr)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: β = .13, p < .0001	.19
	5575 m, 7237 f		.70*	.70*
	Age range: 10–18 yrs		.70*	.70*
Madsen et al. (2009) [104] USA	N = 2379	PRO (9 yrs)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & child reported fathers’ PA (yr 3): r = .13, p < .05	.19
	All females		.70*	HAQ	Girls’ MVPA & child reported fathers’ PA (yr 5): r = .08	.20
	9-10 yrs followed to 18–19 yrs		Adolescent report	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & child reported fathers’ PA (yr 7): r = .13, p < .05
			.70*		Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ PA (yr 9): r = .18, p < .05
					Mean r = .13
					Girls’ MVPA & child reported mothers’ PA (yr 3): r = .13, p < .05
					Girls’ MVPA & child reported mothers’ PA (yr 5): r = .12
					Girls’ MVPA & child reported mothers’ PA (yr 7): r = .16, p < .05
					Girls’ MVPA & child reported mothers’ PA (yr 9): r = .16, p < .05
					Mean r = .14
Martin-Matillas et al. (2011) [105] Spain	N = 2260	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.70-3.29, p < .001	.47
	1157 m, 1103 f		Health Behaviour in Schoolchildren	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.41-2.56, p < .001	.35
	Age range; 13–18.5 yrs		.70*	.70*		.35
Moore et al. (1991) [52] USA	N = 100	CS	Accelerometer (7–9 d)	Accelerometer (8–9 d)	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.5-8.2	.66
	63 m, 37 f		.80*	.80*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 2.0, 95% CI .9-4.4	.33
	Age range: 4–7 yrs		.80*	.80*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 2.0, 95% CI .9-4.4	.33
Nichols-English et al. (2006) [106] USA	N = 133	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ MPA & mothers’ MPA: r = .05	-.09
	All female		7DPAR	7DPAR	Girls’ VPA & mothers’ VPA: r = −.16
	9.6 yrs		.70*	.70*	Mean r = −.06
O’Loughlin et al. (1999) [107] Canada	N = 1920	CS	Child report .70*	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: OR = 1.6 95% CI 1.1-2.1	.26
	989 m, 931 f			Weekly activity checklist
	Age range: 9–13 yrs			Self-reported sports participation
	Age range: 9–13 yrs			.70*
Ohta et al. (2010) [108] Japan	N = 339	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .163, p < .01	.23
	All female		.70*	.70*
	14.8 yrs		.70*	.70*
Pahkala et al. (2007) [109] Finland	N = 558	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .10, p = .19	.21
	294 m, 264 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .15, p < .05	.17
	13.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .15, p < .05	.17
Raudsepp (2006) [110] Estonia	N = 329	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ explicit modeling: r = .23, p < .01	.32
	168 m, 161 f		Father’s modeling .72	7DPAR	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ explicit modeling: r = .33, p < .01	.47
	13.8 yrs		Father’s modeling .72	7DPAR
	13.8 yrs		Mother’s modeling .71	.70*
Shropshire & Carroll (1997) [111] UK	N = 924	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .23	.33
	468 m, 454 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .05	.07
	Age range: 10–11 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .05	.07
Siegel et al. (2011) [112] Mexico	N = 1004	CS	Child report	Child self-report PAQ	Girls’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & fathers’ PA: β = .186, p < .05	.26
	490 m, 514 f		.70*	α = .72	Girls’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & mothers’ PA: β = .148, p < .05	.21
	Age range: 9–18 yr olds				Girls’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & mothers’ PA: β = .148, p < .05	.21
					Girls’ MVPA (11–13 yrs) & fathers’ PA: β = .151, p < .05	.21
					Girls’ MVPA (11–13 yrs) & mothers’ PA: β = .191, p < .05	.27
Sigmund et al. (2008) [113] Czech Republic	N = 192	CS	Parent report	Child report	Girls’ MPA & fathers’ PA: r = .15	.19
	109 m, 89 f		IPAQ	IPAQ	Girls’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .10	.20
	Age range: 8–13 yrs		.70*	.70*	Mean r = .13
					Girls’ MPA & mothers’ PA: r = .28
					Girls’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .27
					Mean r = .14
Toftegaard-Stockel et al. (2011) [114] Denmark	N = 6356	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (sports) & fathers’ PA: r = .11	.16
	3190 m, 3166 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: r = .22	.31
	Age range: 12–16 yrs		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: r = .22	.31
Trost et al. (1997) [115] USA	N = 202	PRO	Child report	Child report	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = −.02	-.02
	92 m, 110 f	(1 yr)	.70*	PDPAR	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .09	.11
	10-11 yrs at baseline	(1 yr)	.70*	.98	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .09	.11
Trost et al. (1999) [116] USA	N = 198	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Girls’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .10	.16
	95 m, 103 f		.70*	.80*	Girls’ MPA & fathers’ PA: r = .13	.12
	11.4 yrs				Mean r = .12
					Girls’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .08
					Girls’ MPA & mothers’ PA: r = .09
					Mean r = .09
Wagner et al. (2004) [117] France	N = 2852	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ structured PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.92	.25
	1421 m, 1431 f		.70*	MAQ-A	Girls’ structured PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.28-2.52	.19
	12.0 yrs		.70*	.70*		.19
Yang et al. (1996) [118] Finland	N = 635	PRO (12 yrs)	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (cohort 1) & fathers’ PA: r = .12	.20
	316 m, 319 f		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA (cohort 2) & fathers’ PA: r = .14	.17
	9.0 yrs at baseline				Girls’ PA (cohort 3) & fathers’ PA: r = .15
	N = 648				Mean r = .14
	321 m, 327 f				Girls’ PA (cohort 1) & mothers’ PA: r = .14
	12.0 yrs at baseline				Girls’ PA (cohort 2) & mothers’ PA: r = .12
	N = 598				Girls’ PA (cohort 3) & mothers’ PA: r = .12
	286 m, 312 f				Mean r = .12
	15.0 yrs at baseline

Note. *reliability not reported; 7DPAR = 7-Day Physical Activity Recall; CPA = Children’s Physical Activity-Short Scale; CS = cross-sectional; d = day; f = female; HAQ = Habitual Activity Questionnaire; IPAQ = International Physical Activity Questionnaire; m = male; MAQ = Modifiable Activity Questionnaire; MAQ-A = Modifiable Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents; MPA = moderate physical activity; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity; PA = physical activity; PACER = Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run; PAQ = Physical Activity Questionnaire; PDPAR = Previous Day Physical Activity Recall; PRO = prospective; VPA = vigorous physical activity.

Table 5

Studies and effect sizes for parental modeling and boys' physical activity moderated by parental gender (k = 49)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental PA measure	Child PA measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Aarnio et al. (1997) [87] Finland	N = 3254	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA (n = 1120) & fathers’ PA: r = .012, p < .01	.02
	1557 m, 1697 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (n = 1146) & mothers’ PA: r = .100, p < .01	.14
	16.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (n = 1146) & mothers’ PA: r = .100, p < .01	.14
Anderssen & Wold (1992) [88] Norway	N = 904	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .17, p < .001	.23
	498 m, 406 f		.70*	.78	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .11, p < .01	.15
	13.3 yrs		.70*	.78	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .11, p < .01	.15
Anderssen et al. (2006) [89] Norway	N = 380	PRO (8 yrs)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: β = .10	.13
	191 m, 189 f		.70*	.83	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: β = .11	.14
	13.3 yrs at baseline		.70*	.83	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: β = .11	.14
Bastos et al. (2008) [90] Brazil	N = 857	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = −.02	-.03
	411 m, 446 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ & mothers’ PA: r = .08	.11
	Age range: 10–19 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ & mothers’ PA: r = .08	.11
Campbell et al. (2001) [92] Canada	N = 153	PRO (12 yrs)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = .05	.05
	77 m, 76 f		.97	.91	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .03	.03
	13.5 yrs at baseline		.97	.91	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .03	.03
Deflandre et al. (2001) [95] France	N = 80	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = .56	.80
	36 m, 44 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .30	.43
	Age range: 11–16 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = .30	.43
Deflandre et al. (2001) [96] France	N = 48	CS	Child report	Heart rate monitor (7 d)	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = −.11	-.16
	26 m, 22 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = −.01	-.01
	17.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = −.01	-.01
Eriksson et al. (2008) [97] Sweden	N = 1124	CS	Baeke Questionnaire	Child self-report	Boys’ PA (sports) & fathers’ PA: crude OR = 3.2, 95% CI 1.5-6.6	.61
	553 m, 571 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: crude OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.4-4.5	.49
	12.0 yrs
	12.0 yrs				crude OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.4-4.5
Fogelholm et al. (1999) [98] Finland	N = 271	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .08	.11
	143 m, 128 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .20, p < .01	.29
	9.6 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .20, p < .01	.29
Fuemmeler et al. (2011) [99] USA	N = 45	CS	Accelerometer (3 d)	Accelerometer (3 d)	Boys’ MVPA (weekend) & fathers’ PA: r = .43, p < .05	.65
	23 m, 22 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA (weekday) & fathers’ PA: r = .38; r = .55, p < .01	.15
	9.9 yrs				Mean r = .453
					Boys’ MVPA (weekend) & mothers’ PA: r = .10
					Boys’ MVPA (weekday) & mothers’ PA: r = .09; r = .13
					Mean r = .107
Jacobi et al. (2011) [101] France	N = 630	CS	Parent self-report	Pedometer (7 d)	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .18	.26
	317 m, 313 f		MAQ	.70*
	Age range 8–18 yrs		Pedometer (7 d)
	Age range 8–18 yrs		.70*
Jago et al. (2014) [102] UK	N = 822	CS	Accelerometer (5 d)	Accelerometer (5 d)	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ MVPA: β = .10	.14
	436 m, 386 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ MVPA: β = .06	.09
	6.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ MVPA: β = .06	.09
Kahn et al. (2008) [103] USA	N = 12812	PRO (1 yr)	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: β = .085, p < .0001	.12
	5575 m, 7237 f		.70*	.70*
	Age range: 10–18 yrs		.70*	.70*
Martin-Matillas et al. (2011) [105] Spain	N = 2260	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 1.99, 95% CI 1.40-2.84, p < .001	.38
	1157 m, 1103 f		Health Behaviour in School Children	.70*		.09
	Age range; 13–18.5 yrs		.70*		Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 1.18, 95% CI .85-1.65, p > .05
Moore et al. (1991) [52] USA	N = 100	CS	Accelerometer (7–9 d)	Accelerometer (8–9 d)	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-9.3	.52
	63 m, 37 f		80*	.80*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 2.0, 95% CI .7-5.7	.33
	Age range: 4–7 yrs		80*	.80*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 2.0, 95% CI .7-5.7	.33
O’Loughlin et al. (1999) [107] Canada	N = 1920	CS	Child report .70*	Child self-report	Boys’ PA (sports) & fathers’ PA: OR = 2.0, 95% CI 1.4-2.9	.38
	989 m, 931 f			Weekly Activity Checklist
	Age range: 9–13 yrs			Self-reported sports participation
	Age range: 9–13 yrs			.70*
Pahkala et al. (2007) [109] Finland	N = 558	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .07, p = .28	.10
	294 m, 264 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .10, p = .13	.14
	13.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .10, p = .13	.14
Raudsepp (2006) [110] Estonia	N = 329	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ explicit modeling: r = .38, p < .001	.54
	168 m, 161 f		Father’s modeling .72	7DPAR	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ explicit modeling: r = .35, p < .01	.50
	13.8 yrs		Mother’s modeling .71	.70*
Shropshire & Carroll (1997) [111] UK	N = 924	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA & fathers’ PA: r = .19	.27
	468 m, 454 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .11	.16
	Age range: 10–11 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA & mothers’ PA: r = .11	.16
Siegel et al. (2011) [112] Mexico	N = 1004	CS	Child report	Child self-report PAQ	Boys’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & fathers’ PA: β = .239, p < .05	.34
	490 m, 514 f		.70*	α = .72	Boys’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & mothers’ PA: β = .160, p < .05	.23
	Age range: 9–18 yr olds		.70*	α = .72	Boys’ MVPA (9–10 yrs) & mothers’ PA: β = .160, p < .05	.23
Sigmund et al. (2008) [113] Czech Republic	N = 192	CS	Parent report	Child report	Boys’ MPA & fathers’ PA: r = .39, p < .001	.34
	109 m, 89 f		IPAQ	IPAQ	Boys’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .08	.34
	Age range: 8–13 yrs		.70*	.70*	Mean r = .24
					Boys’ MPA & mothers’ PA: r = .30
					Boys’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .17
					Mean r = .24
Toftegaard-Stockel et al. (2011) [114] Denmark	N = 6356	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA (sports) & fathers’ PA: r = .19	.27
	3190 m, 3166 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: r = .06	.09
	Age range: 12–16 yrs		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (sports) & mothers’ PA: r = .06	.09
Trost et al. (1997) [115] USA	N = 202	PRO (1 yr)	Child report	Child report	Boys’ MVPA & fathers’ PA: r = .05	.06
	92 m, 110 f		.70*	PDPAR	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = −.07	-.08
	10-11 yrs at baseline		.70*	.98	Boys’ MVPA & mothers’ PA: r = −.07	-.08
Trost et al. (1999) [116] USA	N = 198	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Boys’ VPA & fathers’ PA: r = .15	.24
	95 m, 103 f		.70*	.80*	Boys’ MPA & fathers’ PA: r = .21, p < .05	.24
	11.4 yrs				Mean r = .18
					Boys’ VPA & mothers’ PA: r = .21, p < .05
					Boys’ MPA & mothers’ PA: r = .14
					Mean r = .18
Wagner et al. (2004) [117] France	N = 2852	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Boys’ structured PA & fathers’ PA: OR = 1.36, 95% CI .97-1.91	.37
	1421 m, 1431 f		.70*	MAQ-A	Boys’ structured PA & mothers’ PA: OR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.01-2.14	.17
	12 yrs		.70*	.70*		.17
Yang et al. (1996) [118] Finland	N = 635	PRO (12 yrs)	Child report	Child self-report	Boys’ PA (cohort 1) & fathers’ PA: r = .21	.27
	316 m, 319 f		.70*	.70*	Boys’ PA (cohort 2) & fathers’ PA: r = .17	.10
	9 yrs at baseline				Boys’ PA (cohort 3) & fathers’ PA: r = .18
	N = 648				Mean r = .19
	321 m, 327 f				Boys’ PA (cohort 1) & mothers’ PA: r = .08
	12 yrs at baseline				Boys’ PA (cohort 2) & mothers’ PA: r = .06
	12 yrs at baseline				Boys’ PA (cohort 3) & mothers’ PA: r = .08
	N = 598				Mean r = .07
	286 m, 312 f
	15 yrs at baseline

Note. *reliability not reported; 7DPAR = 7-Day Physical Activity Recall; CS = cross-sectional; d = days; f = females; IPAQ = International Physical Activity Questionnaire; m = males; MAQ = Modifiable Activity Questionnaire; MAQ-A = Modifiable Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents; MPA = moderate physical activity; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity; PA = physical activity; PAQ = Physical Activity Questionnaire; PDPAR = Previous Day Physical Activity Recall; PRO = prospective; VPA = vigorous physical activity.

Table 6

Studies and effect sizes for individual parental support behaviours (k = 64)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental support measure	Child physical activity measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Anderson et al. (2007) [119] USA	N = 100	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (4 d)	Children’s MPA & encouragement: r = −.06	.05
	47 m, 53 f		Encouragement	.70*	Children’s VPA & encouragement: r = .11
	13.4 yrs		.63	.70*	Mean r = .03
Anderson et al. (2009) [120] USA	N = 391	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & encouragement: r = .39	.56
	207 m, 184 f		Encouragement	PAQ-C	Adolescents’ MVPA & parental encouragement: r = .25	.36
	9.9 yrs		.70*	.70*
	N = 948			Child self-report
	370 m, 578 f			MAQ-A
	13.6 yrs			.70*
Arredondo et al. (2006) [121] USA	N = 812	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & monitoring: β = .19, p < .001*	.27
	390 m, 422 f		Monitoring	.70*	Children’s PA & praise: β = .13, p < .001*	.19
	390 m, 422 f		.70*		*Adjusted for parent’s age, marital status, employment, & education
	6.0 yrs		.70*
			Reinforcement/praise
			.70*
Beets et al. (2006) [122] USA	N = 363	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & providing transportation: β = .28	.40
	174 m, 189 f		Encouragement	Youth risk behavior surveillance survey	Children’s MVPA & praise: β = .36	.51
	12.3 yrs		.70*	.70*
			Transportation
			.70*
			Co-activity
			.70*
			Watch.
			70*
			Praise
			.70*
De Bourdeaudhuij et al. (2005) [123] Belguim	N = 5563 (normal weight)	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & encouragement: r = .25 (normal weight); r = .26 (overweight)	.35
	14.8 yrs		Encouragement	Study developed questionnaire	Mean r = .25
	N = 515 (overweight & obese)		.70*	.75
	14.6 yrs		.70*	.75
Dowda et al. (2011) [40] USA	N = 369	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (2 wk)	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment: β = .17	.22
	175 m, 194 f		PA equipment at home	.80*
	4.2 yrs		.70* (92% respondents mothers)	Direct observation (OSRAC-P)
	4.2 yrs		.70* (92% respondents mothers)	Inter-observer .91
Fredricks & Eccles (2005) [42] USA	N = 364	PRO (1 yr)	Parent report	Child self-report	Children’s PA (sport) & encouragement: r = .33, p < .001 (baseline); r = .31, p < .001 (follow-up)	.45
	184 m, 180 f		Encouragement & co-activity	.70*	Mean r = .32	.08
	Ages 7.0-11.0 yrs at baseline
			α = .73		Children’s PA (sport) & co-activity: r = .05 (baseline); r = .07 (follow-up)	.36
			Equipment purchases		Mean r = .06
			Equipment purchases		Children’s PA (sport) & PA equipment: r = .24, p < .001 (baseline); r = .25, p < .001
			.70*		Mean r = .25
Gubbels et al. (2011) [124] Netherlands	N = 2026	PRO (2 yrs)	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & encouragement: β = .06, p < .05	.09
	1037 m, 989 f		Encouragement	.70*
	5.0 yrs at baseline		α = .57	.70*
Heitzler et al. (2006) [76] USA	N = 3114	CS	Parent reported	Child self-report	Children’s organized PA & transportation: OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.11-1.33, p < .001	.12
	Age range: 9.0-13.0 yrs		Parental support – aggregated and individually reported (co-activity, watching child, & transportation)	Test-retest .64	Children’s organized PA & watching: OR = 1.31, 95% 1.19-1.43, p < .001	.16
	Age range: 9.0-13.0 yrs		Test-retest .65	Test-retest .64	Children’s organized PA & co-activity: OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p < .001	.01
Hendrie et al. (2011) [44] Australia	N = 106	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Children’s organized PA & co-activity: r = .247, p < .05; r = .286, p < .01 when controlled for parent demographic factors	.33
	51 m, 55 f		Parental support – aggregate measure (watch, transportation)	CLASS
	8.3 yrs		α = .79	.70*
			Co-activity
			α = .79
			(92% respondents mothers)
Hennessy et al. (2010) [45] USA	N = 76	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (5 d)	Children’s PA & monitoring: β = −.13	-.17
	26 m, 50 f		Monitoring	.70*	Children’s PA & praise: β = −.05, p = .68	-.07
	9.1 yrs		Reinforcement
	9.1 yrs		.83
Hohepa et al. (2007) [125] New Zealand	N = 3471	CS	Child report	Child report	Adolescents’ PA & encouragement: r = .38 (juniors); r = .41 (seniors)	.56
	1666 m, 1805 f		Encouragement	.70*	Mean r = .39
	14.8 yrs		.70*	.70*	Mean r = .39
Huang et al. (2011) [126] China	N = 303	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment: r = .14, p < .05	.20
	143 m, 160 f		Availability of PA equipment	CLASS-C
	11.1 yrs		.70*	.70*
Klesges et al. (1984) [127] USA	N = 14	CS	Direct observation (FATS)	Direct observation (FATS)	Children’s PA (activity monitor) & encouragement: r = .23	.29
	7 m, 7 f		Encouragement	.90
	2.8 yrs		.90	Activity monitor
	2.8 yrs		.90	.70*
Klesges et al. (1986) [128] USA	N = 30	CS	Direct observation (FATS)	Direct observation (FATS)	Children’s PA & encouragement: r = .32, p < .05	.36
	15 m, 15 f		Encouragement	.90
	2.5 yrs		.90	.90
Klesges et al. (1990) [129] USA	N = 222	CS	Direct observation (CATS)	Direct observation (CATS)	Children’s PA & encouragement: β = .32, p = .648	.35
	122 m, 100 f		Encouragement	.91
	4.4 yrs		.91	.91
King et al. (2008) [130] USA	N = 535	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s VPA & encouragement: r = .15	.20
	290 m, 245 f		Encouragement	.70*	Children’s MPA & encouragement: r = .13
	Age range: 14–18 yrs		.70*		Children’s MPA & encouragement: r = .13
	Age range: 14–18 yrs		.70*		Mean r = .14
Lawman & Wilson (2014) [79] USA	N = 181	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescent’s MVPA & PA equipment: r = .09	.13
	72 m, 109 f		Availability of PA equipment	.80*	Adolescent’s MVPA & monitoring: r = .07	.08
	13.3 yrs		α = .61
			Monitoring
			α = .86
Loprinzi et al. (2013) [50] USA	N = 176	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & monitoring: β = .20, p < .05	.29
	82 m, 94 f		Monitoring child’s PA	PAEC-Q
	4.0 yrs		.70 (85% respondents mothers)	.70*
Loucaides et al. (2004) [131] Cyprus	N = 256	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & encouragement: r = .12 (winter); r = .13 (summer)	.10
	Age range: 11.0-12.0 yrs		Encouragement	PDPAR	Mean r = .08
			Test-test .64	Test-retest .96	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment: r = .25, p < .001 (winter); r = .18, p < .01 (summer)
			Parent report		Mean r = .22	.27
			Availability of PA equipment
			.70*
Loucaides & Jago (2006) [132] Cyprus	N = 104	CS	Parent report	Pedometer (5 d)	Children’s PA & equipment: r = .10	.14
	54 m, 50 f		PA equipment	.70*	Children’s PA & transportation: r = .17	.24
	Age range: 10.0-12.0 yrs		.70*		Children’s PA & watching: r = .18	.22
			Transportation
			.70*
			Accompany child to PA
			.99
Määtä et al. (2014) [133] Finland	N = 883	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Child PA & encouragement: r = .19, p < .001	.25
	Age range: 10–11 yrs		Encouragement	.70*	Child PA & Co-activity: r = .16, p < .001	.24
			α = .84
			Co-activity
			α = .63
McKenzie et al. (1991) [134] USA	N = 42	PRO	Direct observation (BEACHES)	Direct observation (BEACHES)	Children’s PA & encouragement: r = .43, p < .01	.51
	17 m, 25 f	(8 wks)	Prompts to be active	.85
	Age range: 4.0-8.0 yrs	(8 wks)	.85	.85
McKenzie et al. (2008) [135] USA	N = 139	CS	Direct observation (BEACHES)	Direct observation (BEACHES)	Children’s MVPA & encouragement: r = .53, p < .01	.62
	69 m, 70 f		Prompts to be active	.85
	6.5 yrs		.85 (97% respondents mothers)	.85
Millstein et al. (2011) [136] USA	N = 104	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment at home: r = .14, p < .15	.18
	8.3 yrs		Availability of PA equipment	ICC = .76	Children’s MVPA & providing recreation centre membership: r = .04	.05
	N = 137		ICC = .80	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA & PA equipment at home: r = .28, p < .01	.42
	14.6 yrs		Provision of recreation centre membership	ICC = .64	Adolescent’s MVPA & providing recreation centre membership: r = .24, p < .01	.37
			ICC = .76
			Child report
			Availability of PA equipment
			ICC = .69
			Provision of recreation centre membership
			ICC = .66
Moore et al. (2008) [137] USA	N =116	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Adolescents’ MVPA & financial support (lessons): OR = 2.79, 95% CI 1.18-6.60, p < .05	.50
	46 m, 70 f		Financial support	.70*	Adolescents’ MVPA & financial support (sports): OR = 5.61, 95% CI 2.30-13.70, p < .01
	Age range: 9.0-17.0 yrs		.70*	.70*	Mean r = .35
Moore et al. (2014) [138] USA	N = 1005	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (4 d)	Children’s MVPA & watching: OR .99, 95% CI .87-1.14); r = −.004	-.01
	11.3 yrs		Watch, praise, transportation, co-activity	.70*	Children’s MVPA & praise: OR 1.01, 95% CI .88-1.12; r = .004	.01
			α = .76-.90		Children’s MVPA & transportation: OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.45, p < .05; r = .14	.19
			α = .76-.90		Children’s MVPA & co-activity: OR .99, 95% CI .87-1.12; r = −.004	-.01
Mota (1998) [53] Portugal	N = 45	CS	Parent self-report	Child self-report	Children’s PA & co-activity: r = .35, p < .05	.44
	18 m, 27 f		.88	.72
	10.1 yrs		.88	.72
Nelson et al. (2005) [139] USA	N = 1681	PRO (8 yrs)	Co-activity	7DPAR	Children’s MVPA & co-activity: OR = 5.84, 95% CI 5.02-6.80	.87
Nelson et al. (2005) [139] USA	14.9 yrs at baseline	PRO (8 yrs)	.70*	.70*	Children’s MVPA & co-activity: OR = 5.84, 95% CI 5.02-6.80	.87
Østbyte et al. (2013) [54] USA	N = 208	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment at home: r = .01	.01
	116 m, 92 f		PA equipment	.80*
	2-5 yrs		α = .65 (all mothers)	.80*
Pate et al. (1997) [140] USA	N = 361	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Children’s MVPA & PA equipment: r = .10	.13
	176 m, 185 f		PA equipment at home	PDPAR
	10.7 yrs		ICC = .86	.70*
Patnode et al. (2010) [55] USA	N = 294	CS	Parent reported the provision of PA equipment	Accelerometer (7 d)	Adolescents’ MVPA & PA equipment: r = .21, p < .001	.27
	149 m, 145 f		.70*	.80*
	15.4 yrs		.70*	.80*
Pfeiffer et al. (2009) [57] USA	N = 331	CS	Providing PA equipment	Accelerometer (8–10 d)	Children’s’ MVPA & PA equipment: r = .10, p < .10	.13
	169 m, 162 f		.70* (94% respondents mothers)	Accelerometer (8–10 d)
	4.3 yrs		.70* (94% respondents mothers)	.80*
Prochaska et al. (2002) [81] USA	N = 138	CS	Child report	Activity monitor (5 d)	Children’s PA (monitor) & encouragement: r = .07	.09
	48 m, 90 f		Parental support – aggregated & individual measures: Encouragement, coactivity, transportation, watch, praise	.70*	Children’s PA (monitor) & coactivity: r = .08	.10
	48 m, 90 f			.70*	Children’s PA (monitor) & transportation: r = .02	.03
	12.1 yrs		ICC = .88	ICC = .79	Children’s PA (monitor) & watching: r = .16	.20
	12.1 yrs		α = .77	ICC = .79	Children’s PA (monitor) & praise: r = .12 .30, p < .01	.15
Sabiston & Crocker (2008) [141] Canada	N = 857	CS	Child report	GLTEQ	Adolescents’ MVPA & encouragement: r = .27, p < .05	.37
	419 m, 438 f		Encouragement .77	.70*
	16.3 yrs		Encouragement .77	.70*
Schary et al. (2012) [84] USA	N = 195	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & encouragement: r = .28, p < .001	.38
	90 m, 105 f		Parental support – aggregated & individual measures (encouragement, transportation, co-activity, watch, inform)	PAEC-Q	Children’s PA & watching: r = .22	.30
	4.0 yrs		α = .76 (86% respondents mothers)	.70*	Children’s PA & co-activity: r = .26, p < .001	.36
					Children’s PA & transportation: r = .22, p < .001	.30
					Children’s PA & providing information: r = .16, p < .05	.22
Vella et al. (2014) [65] Australia	N = 4042	CS	Parent report	Parent report	Children’s PA & co-activity: OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.24-1.57 p < .05; r = .13	.19
	2069 m, 1973 f		Co-activity	Organized sports participation
	2069 m, 1973 f		.70* (96% respondents mothers)	.70*
	8.3 yrs		.70* (96% respondents mothers)	.70*
Verloigne et al. (2014) [85] Australia	N = 134	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (4 d)	Adolescent MVPA & co-activity: r = .01	.01
	66 m, 68 f		Co-activity	.70*	Adolescent MVPA & praise: r = .01	.01
	14.1 yrs		Praise
	14.1 yrs		.70* (84% respondents mothers)
Zhao & Settles (2014) [69] USA	N = 1514	CS	Parent self-report	Parent report	Children’s MPA & encouragement: β = .30, p < .05	.24
	763 m, 751 f		Encouragement	.70*	Children’s VPA & encouragement: β = .14	.33
	11.8 yrs		Co-activity		Mean β = .17
			.70*		Children’s MPA & co-activity: β = .21, p < .01
					Children’s VPA & co-activity: β = .25, p < .01
					Mean β = .23

Note. *reliability not reported; 7DPAR = 7-Day Physical Activity Recall; BEACHES = Behaviors of Eating and Activity for Children’s Health Evaluation System; CS = cross-sectional; d = days; f = females; FATS = Fargo Activity Timesampling Survey; GLTEQ = Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire; m = males; MPA = moderate physical activity; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity; PA = physical activity; PAEC-Q = Physical Activity and Exercise Questionnaire for Children; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children; PRO = prospective; CATS = Children’s Activity Timesampling Survey; VPA = vigorous physical activity.

Table 7

Studies and effect sizes for parental support and girls’ physical activity moderated by parental gender (k = 13)

Study, country	Sample (number, gender, mean age)	Design	Parental support measure	Child physical activity measure	Results	Corrected effect size
Beets et al. (2007) [142] USA	N = 259	CS	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ MVPA & paternal support: β = −.09	-.11
	All female		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, co-activity, transportation, watch, praise)	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & maternal support: β = .25	.32
	15.5 yrs		Mother α = .85
	15.5 yrs		Father α = .91
Brunet et al. (2014) [143] Canada	N = 558	CS	Child report	Accelerometer (7 d)	Girls’ MVPA & paternal support: r = .24, p < .001 (normal weight)	.28
	306 m, 252 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (co-activity, watch, transportation, encouragement, inform)	.80*	Girls’ MVPA & paternal support: r = .20	.19
	9.6 yrs		α = .77		Mean r = .22
			α = .77		Girls’ MVPA & maternal support: r = .10
			ICC = .81		Girls’ MVPA & maternal support: r = .20 (normal weight)
			ICC = .81		Mean r = .15
Butcher et al. (1983) [144] Canada	N = 696	CS	Self-report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & maternal support: r = .21	.30
	All female		Parental support	.70*
	11.0-16.0 yrs		.70*	.70*
Butcher (1985) [145] Canada	N = 140	PRO	Child report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA (structured PA outside of school) & paternal support: r = .36, p < .01	.51
	All female	(5 yrs)	Parental support	.70*	Girls’ PA (structured PA outside of school) & maternal support: r = .27, p < .01	.39
	Followed from age 11.0 to 15.0 yrs	(5 yrs)	.70*	.70*		.39
Davison et al. (2003) [94] USA	N = 180	CS	Parent report	Child self-report	Girls’ PA & paternal	.19
	All females		Logistic support	PA measure a composite score of CPA-short, an activity checklist, & PACER	logistic support: r = .14	.28
	9.0 yrs		Mother α = .61	.70*	Girls’ PA & maternal logistic support: r = .18, p < .05
	9.0 yrs		Father α = .74	.70*	Girls’ PA & maternal logistic support: r = .18, p < .05
Hinkley et al. (2012) [100] Australia	N = 705	CS	Parent report	Accelerometer (8 d)	Girls’ PA & paternal logistic support: OR = 1.01, 95% CI .99-1.03	.01
	366 m, 262 f		Logistic support .70*	.80*
	4.5 yrs		Logistic support .70*	.80*
Kirby et al. (2011) [146] UK	N = 641	PRO (5 yrs)	Child report	Child report	Girls’ PA & paternal support (yr 1): OR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.13-3.60 (p < .05)	.34
	313 m, 328 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, transportation, watch, co-activity, praise)	PAQ-C	Girls’ PA & paternal support (yr 3): OR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.32-3.70 (p < .05)	.37
	Followed from age		.70*	.70*	Girls’ PA & paternal support (yr 5): OR = 1.98, 95% CI 1.06-3.71 (p < .05)	.37
	11-15 yrs				Mean r = .24
					Girls’ PA & maternal support (yr 1): OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.41-4.50 (p < .05)
					Girls’ PA & maternal support (yr 3): OR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.32-3.70 (p < .05)
					Girls’ PA & maternal support (yr 5): OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 0.54-3.58
					Mean r = .26
Raudsepp (2006) [110] Estonia	N = 329	CS	Parent report	7DPAR	Girls’ MVPA & fathers’ logistic support: r = .32, p < .010	.43
	168 m, 161 f		Parental logistic support –aggregated measure (enrollment, financial support, transportation)	.70*	Girls’ MVPA & mothers’ logistic support: r = .22, p < .01	.32
	13.8 yrs		Father α = .78
	13.8 yrs		Mother α = .68
Stucky-Ropp & DiLorenzo (1993) [147] USA	N = 242	CS	Parent report	Child self-reported	Girls’ PA & maternal support: r = .32	.46
	121 m, 121 f		Parental support – aggregated measure (encouragement, offers to exercise with child)	.70*
	11.2 yrs		.70* (all respondents mothers)	.70*

Note. *reliability not reported; 7DPAR = 7-day physical activity recall; CS = cross-sectional; d = days; f = females; m = males; MVPA = moderate to vigorous physical activity; PA = physical activity; PAQ-C = Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children; PRO = prospective.

Parental modeling as a correlate

Overall effect size

A total of 36 effect sizes were used in the analysis to determine the overall relationship between parent and child PA (Table 8). Based on the fixed effects model and correcting for measurement error, parent and child PA associations approached a medium effect size (r = .29, 95% CI .28-.30). However, the results showed that the effect sizes in the sample were significantly heterogeneous Q (36) = 1597.52, p < .001. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, using the point estimate from random effects model was appropriate, which resulted in a small effect size (r = .16, 95% CI .09-.24). Moreover, 98% of the observed variance was explained by true systematic effect size differences between studies.

Table 8

Summary statistics for hypothesized moderators of children’s physical activity and parental modeling; fixed and random effects analyses (using corrected r values)

Variable	Q _b	p	k	Random effects		Fixed effects		SE	Q _w	I ²
Variable	Q _b	p	k	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	SE	Q _w	I ²
Parental modeling-summary			36	.16	.09-.24	.29	.28-.30	.04	1597.52*	97.81
Developmental age
2-5.4 yrs	2.61	.27	9	.25	.06-.42	.20	.15-.24	.04	109.03*	90.70
5.5-12.4 yrs			17	.17	.09-.40	.08	.06-.10	.03	378.48*	94.65
12.5-19 yrs			10	.08	-.07-.22	.32	.32-.33	.05	467.01*	85.92
Measurement of PA
Objective	1.42	.23	11	.24	.09-.37	.12	.08-.16	.04	115.80*	91.36
Reported			25	.13	.04-.22	.29	.29-.30	.04	1404.20*	98.29
Quality
High	4.73	.09	4	-.05	-.26-.15	-.07	-.14-.00	.04	26.49*	88.67
Moderate			27	.19	.10-.27	.29	.29-.30	.04	1419.74*	98.17
Low			5	.22	.02-.40	.25	.19-.31	.04	31.58*	87.33
Geographical location ^a
USA	3.52	.06	24	.19	.09-.28	.32	.31-.32	.06	889.55*	97.41
AUS/NZ			6	.02	-.13-.17	.00	-.03-.03	.03	36.11*	86.15
Study design
CS	.56	.45	32	.15	.07-.23	.30	.30-.31	.04	1210.09*	97.44
PRO			4	.23	.04-.41	.02	-.01-.05	.04	28.79	89.58

Note: *p < .001; ^asome countries excluded from the analysis based on < 4 effect sizes.

Moderators of child physical activity

Table 8 indicates that subsequent analyses did not find any of the proposed moderators of parent and child physical activity to be significant (p > .05).

Based on 49 effect sizes, our analyses found that parental gender moderated the relationship between boys’ PA and parents’ PA (Table 9). The results showed that father-son PA (r = .29, 95% CI .21-.36) was significantly higher than mother-son PA (r = .19, 95% CI .14-.23; p < .05). For parental modeling and girls’ PA, results from the 62 effect sizes showed that parental gender did not moderate the relationship. The correlation for father-daughter PA (r = .22, 95% CI 16-.27) and mother-daughter PA (r = .23, 95% CI .18-.27) were both similar in magnitude.

Table 9

Summary statistics for parent–child intergenerational relationships for boys’ and girls’ physical activity and parental modeling; fixed and random effects analyses (using corrected r values)

Variable	Q _b	p	k	Random effects		Fixed effects		SE	Q _w	I ²
Variable	Q _b	p	k	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	SE	Q _w	I ²
Parental modeling
Son-father	4.89	.03	24	.29	.21-.36	.27	.25-.29	.02	386.57*	94.05
Son-mother			25	.19	.14-.23	.15	.13-.16	.01	160.91*	85.09
Daughter-father	.05	.83	28	.22	.16-.27	.21	.19-.22	.01	288.48*	90.64
Daughter-mother			34	.23	.18-.27	.22	.21-.24	.01	352.81*	90.65
Parental support
Daughter-father	.26	.61	7	.24	.07-.40	.22	.17-.26	.03	71.68*	91.63
Daughter-mother			8	.32	.27-.37	.32	.28-.35	.00	10.64	34.23

Note: *p < .001.

Parental support as a correlate

Overall effect size

A total of 34 effect sizes were used to estimate the relationship between overall parental support and child PA (Table 10). Both the fixed and random effects model found that the relationship between parental support and child PA was moderate in size (r = .38). Analyses from the fixed model also indicated that a significant degree of heterogeneity within the sample was present (Q (34) = 1204.70, p < .001) and that 97% of the observed variance was explained by true systematic effect size differences between studies.

Table 10

Summary statistics for hypothesized moderators of children’s physical activity and parental support; fixed and random effects analyses (using corrected r values)

Variable	Q _b	p	k	Random effects		Fixed effects		SE	Q _w	I ²
Variable	Q _b	p	k	r	95% CI	r	95% CI	SE	Q _w	I ²
Parental support
Composite-summary			34	.38	.30-.46	.38	.37-.39	.03	1204.70*	97.26
Coactivity			12	.28	.03-.50	.29	.27-.31	.13	2237.45*	99.51
Encouragement			19	.34	.25-.41	.36	.34-.37	.02	537.72*	96.65
Praise			6	.15	-.03-.32	.15	.11-.19	.04	88.49*	94.35
Watching			5	.16	.05-.27	.13	.10-.16	.01	30.47*	86.87
Transportation			6	.22	.12-.31	.16	.14-.19	.01	38.08*	86.87
Equipment			12	.21	.15-.27	.21	.17-.24	.01	32.49*	66.14
Monitoring			4	.14	-.03-.30	.22	.17-.27	.03	18.33*	83.64
Developmental age
Overall/composite
2-5.4 yrs	2.02	.37	7	.30	.18-.41	.28	.24-.33	.02	36.83*	83.71
5.5-12.4 yrs			10	.35	.21-.47	.38	.37-.40	.04	328.95*	97.26
12.5-19 yrs			17	.42	.29-.55	.40	.38-.41	.05	818.32*	98.05
Encouragement
2-5.4 yrs	0.48	.79	5	.29	.10-.45	.14	.10-.18	.04	30.90*	87.05
5.5-12.4 yrs			8	.36	.23-.48	.31	.28-.34	.03	103.89*	93.26
12.5-19 yrs			6	.34	.21-.45	.41	.40-.43	.03	213.24*	97.66
Measurement of PA
Overall/composite
Objective	19.53	<.01	11	.20	.13-.26	.21	.18-.24	.01	29.97	66.63
Self-report			23	.46	.37-.55	.41	.40-.43	.03	1047.24*	97.90
Encouragement
Objective	.00	.98	7	.34	.14-.51	.34	.27-.40	.05	38.83*	84.55
Reported			12	.34	.24-.43	.36	.34-.37	.02	498.52*	97.79
Quality
Overall/composite							.
High	.57	.45	7	.48	.17-.71	.38	36-.41	.18	659.51*	99.09
Moderate/low			24	.37	.29-.44	.41	.40-.43	.02	445.01*	94.83
Geographical Location^a
Overall/composite
USA	2.80	.25	21	.33	.25-.41	.37	.36-.39	.04	408.09*	95.10
AUS/NZ			4	.59	-.14-.90	.69	.66-.73	.68	438.27*	99.32
EUR			6	.45	.32-.56	.40	.37-.43	.03	75.55*	93.38
Encouragement
USA	2.87	.09	13	.36	.27-.44	.33	.30-.35	.03	105.40*	88.62
EUR			4	.20	.04-.35	.28	.26-.30	.03	125.39*	97.61

Note: *p < .001; ^asome countries excluded from the analysis based on < 4 effect sizes.

According to the corrected random effects models, many of the effect sizes for the various individual support behaviours were small. Parent–child co-activity, praising the child for being active, watching the child participate in PA, providing transportation to a place where the child could be active, monitoring the child’s PA levels, and supplying the child with PA equipment ranged between r = .15-.28 (Table 10). The only support behaviour to have a moderate effect size was the relationship between parental encouragement and child PA (r = .34, 95% CI .25-.41). Overall, the dispersal of the effect sizes calculated was variable, ranging from 66 to 100%.

Moderators of child physical activity

Table 10 presented the potential moderators that were investigated in our analysis. In the analysis, child and adolescent PA was moderated by the type of measurement used to quantify the child’s PA (p < .001). When objective PA measures were used, the results showed a small effect of r = .20 (95% CI .13-.26) between a composite measure of parental support and child PA; whereas reported PA had a moderate effect size of r = .46 (95% CI .37-.55). Developmental age, study design, and geographical location were not significant moderators of overall parental support and child PA. Due to the limited number of prospective studies, moderator analyses were not conducted to examine the effects of study design.

Among individual supportive behaviours, only parental encouragement had an adequate amount of studies to examine potential moderating variables (Table 10). Moderating variables such as developmental age and geographical location were not significant moderators of the parental encouragement and child PA relationship (p > .05).

When examining the relationship between girls’ PA and parental support, the summary analysis of 10 effect sizes found that the parental gender did not significantly moderate this relationship (p > .05) (Table 9). Analyses exploring the moderating effects of parental gender in boys’ PA were limited by the number of studies and were not conducted.

Publication bias

Funnel plots were constructed to investigate the possibility of publication bias for parent and child PA, parental support and child PA, and individual support behaviours and child PA associations. When visually inspected, the resulting funnel plots suggested a potential publication bias for parent and child PA, and providing transportation for the child to be active and child PA associations.

A subsequent classic fail-safe N analysis for child–parent PA associations showed that 7590 studies with a mean effect of zero were necessary for the overall effect found to become statistically insignificant. Based on this relatively large computation, it indicated that the results were not skewed. However, for providing the child with transportation to opportunities to be active, only 198 studies needed to create a mean effect of zero for the effect to be insignificant, alluding to a skewed effect size. Subsequent trim and fill analyses specified that it was necessary to trim two studies from the computation. With the correction, the effect size for transporting the child to physical activities and child PA decreased from the original point estimate of r = .22 (95% CI .12-.31) to a corrected point estimate of r = .14 (95% CI .03-.24).

Discussion

The main objectives of this meta-analysis were to thoroughly investigate and quantify the strength of parental correlates and identify whether parent–child gender interactions are notable in child and adolescent PA. Previous systematic reviews have been narrative in nature and meta-analyses attempting to quantify the overall effects between parental support and modeling behaviours and child PA have been restricted to 20–30 studies [8,16] – resulting in a partial depiction of the parental correlates in child and adolescent PA. This meta-analysis encompasses 112 studies published to date and thus sheds a more definitive light on the relationship between parental behaviours and children’s PA.

One of the contentious topics has been whether parental modeling is an important correlate in child and adolescent PA. Recent narrative reviews have suggested that parent’s PA behaviours were unassociated with child and adolescent PA [14,20]. The meta-analysis conducted by Pugliese and Tinsley [8] found a small effect (r = .10) for parent and child PA. Our results, after correcting for measurement error, concurred with the previous meta-analysis showing a small overall association between parental and child PA.

During preadolescent years, parental modeling of PA plays an integral role in establishing a social norm regarding activity [7], but as the child matures, modeling behaviours in the PA domain may be drawn from the emergent influence of the child’s peers while the influence of parental modeling wanes. It is also possible that in early years of childhood parent–child coactivity is more prevalent; and as the child ages, the association between parent and child PA bifurcates and becomes more independent from each other. In any case, the results suggest the importance of family-based coactivity interventions in the early years of child development.

A number of narrative reviews have consistently identified an association between parental support and children’s PA [6-9,11,12,14,16,18-21]. This meta-analysis is the first to quantify the relationship between overall parental support and child PA as well as various individual supportive behaviours. In our analyses, overall parental support and child PA yielded a medium effect size. This effect is worthy of noting, particularly when compared to other correlates of child behaviour. For example, a recent meta-analysis examining children’s affective judgments in PA, found that affect had a small to medium an effect size (r = .26) between children’s affect and PA behaviour [25]. Based on these findings, it suggests that parental support for child and adolescent PA may be an important consideration for future PA intervention efforts.

In line with this thinking, it is important to examine whether any particular support behaviour is of critical value over others as a potential intervention target. Our analyses of specific behaviours such as praising the child, watching the child participate in PA, engaging in parent–child co-activity, transporting the child to places where the child could be active, and providing the child with equipment all had small effect sizes (r = .14-.28). The only individual support behaviour that was moderate in size was parental encouragement. To date, much quantitative reviews have only investigated the individual support behaviour of parental encouragement on child PA, which has been identified as a small correlation of r = .15-.18 [8,16], which is smaller than our results. However, it is important to mention that these correlations were not previously corrected for measurement error. Overall, based on these various small effect sizes, it may be important to consider the potency of parental support taken as an aggregate rather than any individual support behaviour.

To date, various studies have examined the moderating effect of parental gender in boys’ and girls’ PA, yet the finding has been unclear and speculative. In a systematic review, a positive association was found for father-son PA [7]. Similarly, among maternal relationships, mother-daughter PA was significantly related [7]. Our results brought forth a degree of transparency regarding parent–child gender interactions further supporting a stronger correlation for father-son PA. However, in our results no differences were found for mother-son and mother-daughter PA correlations. In the area of parental support, no differences were found for the maternal and paternal interaction for girls’ PA. However, the parental interaction regarding boys’ PA will require further investigation. Overall, these results suggested that the importance between the intergenerational relationship between father and son PA and may be an important consideration when targeting boys’ activity behaviour. As well, our findings indicated that the incorporation of parental support behaviours, irrespective of parental gender, were an essential component for prospective interventions that target girls’ PA.

The limitations of this review highlight the fact that additional research is needed in several areas to improve our understanding of the correlates in child and adolescent PA. First, the use of parental support instruments and reporting of the correlation between parental support and child PA in this meta-analysis have been quite diverse, which also has been documented in the previously published literature [18,22]. Moving forward, it may be important to utilize previously validated measures, such as the activity support scale [37], and report both individual support behaviours and parental support as a construct (see [22] for an overview of parental support measures). Second, an important consideration may be children’s peers and siblings and how they relate the child’s behaviour. Thus, future research will be needed to explore the role of socialization of the immediate social network outside of the family unit and whether other children provide more salient models or social support for PA. Third, much of the research has been limited to developed nations such as the United States, Australia, or Europe. More studies will be needed from other countries to explore whether cultural differences are present. Fourth, an important detail to underscore from this review was that many of the parental respondents were mothers. It may be important to investigate the roles of fathers in the area of parental support and child PA. Lastly, several individual support behaviours were unexamined due to the limited amount of research (e.g., informing the child that PA is beneficial or financial support). More research is needed to uncover the relationship these support behaviours and child PA and whether certain parental support behaviours are conducive to a specific type of PA (e.g., structured or unstructured PA).

In summary, this meta-analysis presents results that align with previous reviews but represent a larger and more robust assessment of the parental and child correlates literature and the consideration for measurement error and methodologic quality. The findings demonstrate that both parental modeling and support related to child and adolescent PA. However, overall parental support emerged as a sizeable correlate linked to child activity. In addition to this, our results revealed a significant degree of heterogeneity among the studies that could not be explained well by our proposed moderators. In order to advance our intervention approaches to increase PA in children and adolescents, it will be critical to consider the development of interventions based on the child’s developmental age. More notably, it will be essential to integrate parents as a source of social support to change child and adolescent PA behaviour.

Abbreviation

PA:: Physical activity

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)

Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, PO Box 3010 STN CSC, Victoria, V8W 3N4, Canada

References

Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CL, Clarke J, Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep. 2011;22:15–23.Google Scholar
Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Mâsse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–8.Google Scholar
O’Connor TM, Jago R, Baranowski T. Engaging parents to increase youth physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:141–9.Google Scholar
Baranowski T, Anderson C, Carmack C. Mediating variable framework in physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 1998;15:266–97.Google Scholar
Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–75.Google Scholar
Biddle SJH, Whitehead SH, O’Donovan TM, Nevill ME. Correlates of participation in physical activity for adolescent girls: a systematic review of recent literature. J Phys Act Heal. 2005;2:423–34.Google Scholar
Gustafson SL, Rhodes RE. Parental correlates of physical activity in children and early adolescents. Sports Med. 2006;36:79–97.Google Scholar
Pugliese J, Tinsley B. Parental socialization of child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol. 2007;21:331–43.Google Scholar
Van Der Horst K, Paw MJC, Twisk JWR, Van Mechelen W. A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1241–50.Google Scholar
Van Sluijs EMF, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335:703.Google Scholar
Beets MW, Cardinal BJ, Alderman BL. Parental social support and the physical activity-related behaviors of youth: a review. Heal Educ Behav. 2010;37:621–44.Google Scholar
Edwardson CL, Gorely T. Parental influences on different types and intensities of physical activity in youth: a systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2010;11:522–35.Google Scholar
Craggs C, Corder K, van Sluijs EMF, Griffin SJ. Determinants of change in physical activity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:645–58.Google Scholar
Trost S, Loprinzi PD. Parental influences on physical activity behavior in children and adolescents: a brief review. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2011;5:171–81.Google Scholar
Van Sluijs EMF, Kriemler S, McMinn AM. The effect of community and family interventions on young people’s physical activity levels: a review of reviews and updated systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:914–22.Google Scholar
Mitchell J, Skouteris H, Mccabe M, Ricciardelli LA, Milgrom J, Baur LA, et al. Physical activity in young children: a systematic review of parental influences. Early Child Dev Care. 2012;182:1411–37.Google Scholar
Webber KJ, Loescher LJ. A systematic review of parent role modeling of healthy eating and physical activity for their young African-American children. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2013;18:173–88.Google Scholar
Mendonça G, Cheng LA, Mélo EN, de Farias Júnior JC. Physical activity and social support in adolescents: a systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2014;29:822–39.Google Scholar
Biddle SJH, Atkin AJ, Cavill N, Foster C. Correlates of physical activity in youth: a review of quantitative systematic reviews. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011;4:25–49.Google Scholar
Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–71.Google Scholar
Sterdt E, Liersch S, Walter U. Correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents: a systematic review of reviews. Health Educ J. 2013;73:72–89.Google Scholar
Sleddens EFC, Kremers SPJ, Hughes SO, Cross MB, Thijs C, De Vries NK, et al. Physical activity parenting: a systematic review of questionnaires and their associations with child activity levels. Obes Rev. 2012;13:1015–33.Google Scholar
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12.Google Scholar
Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–31.Google Scholar
Nasuti G, Rhodes RE. Affective judgment and physical activity in youth: review and meta-analyses. Ann Behav Med. 2013;45:357–76.Google Scholar
Rhodes RE, Fiala B, Conner M. A review and meta-analysis of affective judgments and physical activity in adult populations. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:180–204.Google Scholar
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta-analysis. 2nd ed. Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2005.Google Scholar
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–84.Google Scholar
Kirk M, Rhodes RE. Occupation correlates of adults’ participation in leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:476–85.Google Scholar
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken L: Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Volume Third Edit. Erlbaum: NY; 2003:703 S.Google Scholar
Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2005;37:S531–43.Google Scholar
Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;1:155–9.Google Scholar
Rosenthal R: The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979; 86:638–641.Google Scholar
Duval S, Tweedie R. A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Soc. 2000;95:89–98.Google Scholar
Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56:455–63.Google Scholar
Alderman B, Benham-Deal TB, Jenkins JM. Change in parental influence on children’s physical activity over time. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:60.Google Scholar
Ammouri AA, Kaur H, Neuberger GB, Gajewski B, Choi WS. Correlates of exercise participation in adolescents. Public Health Nurs. 2007;24:111–20.Google Scholar
Berge JM, Meyer C, MacLehose RF, Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D. Nonresident parental influence on adolescent weight and weight-related behaviors: similar or different from resident parental influence? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:131.Google Scholar
Dempsey JM, Kimiecik JC, Horn TS. Parental influence on children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: an expectancy-value approach. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1993;5:151–67.Google Scholar
Dowda M, Pfeiffer KA, Brown WH, Mitchell JA, Byun W, Pate RR. Parental and environmental correlates of physical activity of children attending preschool. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165:939–44.Google Scholar
Dzewaltowski D, Ryan GJ, Rosenkranz RR. Parental bonding may moderate the relationship between parent physical activity and youth physical activity after school. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2008;9:848–54.Google Scholar
Fredricks JA, Eccles JS. Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation and involvement. Sport Psychol. 2005;27:3–31.Google Scholar
Heitzler CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, Barr-Anderson D, Sirard JR, Story M. Evaluating a model of youth physical activity. Am J Health Behav. 2010;35:593–607.Google Scholar
Hendrie G, Coveney J, Cox DN. Factor analysis shows association between family activity environment and children’s health behaviour. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2011;35:524–9.Google Scholar
Hennessy E, Hughes SO, Goldberg JP, Hyatt RR, Economos CD. Parent–child interactions and objectively measured child physical activity: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:71.Google Scholar
Keresztes N, Piko BF, Pluhar ZF, Page RM. Social influences in sports activity among adolescents. J R Soc Promot Health. 2008;128:21–5.Google Scholar
Labree W, Lötters F, van de Mheen D, Rutten F, Rivera Chavarría A, Neve M, et al. Physical activity differences between children from migrant and native origin. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:819.Google Scholar
Lei WG, Phillips A, Reed JA. An investigation of the relationships between environmental factors and physical activity among Taiwanese high school students. Environ Factors Phys Act. 2004;40:43–9.Google Scholar
Loprinzi PD, Trost SG. Parental influences on physical activity behavior in preschool children. Prev Med. 2010;50:129–33.Google Scholar
Loprinzi PD, Schary DP, Beets MW, Leary J, Cardinal BJ. Association between hypothesized parental influences and preschool children’s physical activity behavior. Am J Heal Educ. 2013;44:9–18.Google Scholar
McMurray RG, Bradley CB, Harrell JS, Bernthal PR, Frauman AC, Bangdiwala SI. Parental influences on childhood fitness and activity patterns. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1993;64:249–55.Google Scholar
Moore LL, Lombardi DA, White MJ, Campbell JL, Oliveria SA, Ellison RC. Influence of parents’ physical activity levels on activity levels of young children. J Pediatr. 1991;118:215–9.Google Scholar
Mota J. Parents’ physical activity behaviors and children's physical activity. J Hum Mov Stud. 1998;35:89–100.Google Scholar
Østbye T, Malhotra R, Stroo M, Lovelady C, Brouwer R, Zucker N, et al. The effect of the home environment on physical activity and dietary intake in preschool children. Int J Obes. 2013;37:1314–21.Google Scholar
Patnode CD, Lytle L, Erickson DJ, Sirard JR, Barr-Anderson D, Story M. The relative influence of demographic, individual, social, and environmental factors on physical activity among boys and girls. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:79.Google Scholar
Perusse L, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Bouchard C. Genetic and environmental influences on level of habitual physical activity and exercise participation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129:1012–22.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M, McIver KL, Pate RR. Factors related to objectively measured physical activity in preschool children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2009;21:196–208.Google Scholar
Poest C, Williams JR, Witt DD, Atwood ME. Physical activity patterns of preschool children. Early Child Res Q. 1989;4:367–76.Google Scholar
Polley DC, Spicer MT, Knight AP, Hartley BL. Intrafamilial correlates of overweight and obesity in African-American and Native-American grandparents, parents, and children in rural Oklahoma. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:262–5.Google Scholar
Ruiz R, Gesell SB, Buchowski MS, Lambert W, Barkin SL. The relationship between Hispanic parents and their preschool-aged children’s physical activity. Pediatrics. 2011;127:888–95.Google Scholar
Rutkowski EM, Connelly CD. Self-efficacy and physical activity in adolescent and parent dyads. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2012;17:51–60.Google Scholar
Sallis JF, Patterson TL, Buono MJ, Atkins CJ, Nader PR. Aggregation of physical activity habits in Mexican-American and Anglo families. J Behav Med. 1988;11:31–41.Google Scholar
Singh GK, Kogan MD, Siahpush M, van Dyck PC. Prevalence and correlates of state and regional disparities in vigorous physical activity levels among US children and adolescents. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6:73–87.Google Scholar
Trost SG, Sallis JF, Pate RR, Freedson PS, Taylor WC, Dowda M. Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2003;25:277–82.Google Scholar
Vella S, Cliff DP, Okely AD. Socio-ecological predictors of participation and dropout in organised sports during childhood. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:62.Google Scholar
Welk GJ, Wood K, Morss G. Parental influences on physical activity in children: an exploration of potential mechanisms. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2003;15:19–33.Google Scholar
Williams SL, Mummery WK. Links between adolescent physical activity, body mass index, and adolescent and parent characteristics. Heal Educ Behav. 2011;38:510–20.Google Scholar
Zecevic CA, Tremblay L, Lovsin T, Michel L: Parental influence on young children’s physical activity. Int J Pediatr 2010:1-9.Google Scholar
Zhao J, Settles BH. Environmental correlates of children’s physical activity and obesity. Am J Health Behav. 2014;38:124–34.Google Scholar
Ziviani J, Macdonald D, Jenkins D, Rodger S, Batch J, Cerin E. Physical activity of young children. Occup Particip Heal. 2005;26:4–15.Google Scholar
Ziviani J, Macdonald D, Ward H, Jenkins D, Rodger S. Physical activity of young children: a two-year follow-up. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2008;28:25–39.Google Scholar
Barr-Anderson DJ, O’Brien-Robinson R, Haines J, Hannan P, Neumark-Sztainer D. Parental report vs. child perception of familial support: Which is more associated with child physical activity and television use? J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:364–8.Google Scholar
Davison KK, Nishi A, Kranz S, Wyckoff L, May JJ, Earle-Richardson GB, et al. Associations among social capital, parenting for active lifestyles, and youth physical activity in rural families living in upstate New York. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:1488–96.Google Scholar
Hagger M, Chatzisarantis NLD, Hein V, Soós I, Karsai I, Lintunen T, et al. Teacher, peer and parent autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: a trans-contextual model of motivation in four nations. Psychol Health. 2009;24:689–711.Google Scholar
Hamilton K, White KM. Extending the theory of planned behavior: the role of self and social influences in predicting adolescent regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30:56–74.Google Scholar
Heitzler CD, Martin SL, Duke J, Huhman M. Correlates of physical activity in a national sample of children aged 9–13 years. Prev Med. 2006;42:254–60.Google Scholar
Kim YH, Cardinal BJ. Psychosocial correlates of Korean adolescents’ physical activity behavior. J Exerc Sci Fit. 2010;8:97–104.Google Scholar
Langer SL, Crain L, Senso MM, Levy RL, Sherwood NE. Predicting child physical activity and screen time: parental support for physical activity and general parenting styles. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014;39:633–42.Google Scholar
Lawman HG, Wilson DK. Associations of social and environmental supports with sedentary behavior, light and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in obese underserved adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:92.Google Scholar
Ommundsen Y, Klasson-Heggebø L, Anderssen SA. Psycho-social and envrionmental correlates of location-specific physical activity among 9- and 15- year-old Norwegian boys and girls: the European youth heart study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:32.Google Scholar
Prochaska JJ, Rodgers MW, Sallis JF. Association of parent and peer support with adolescent physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73:206–10.Google Scholar
Schaben JA, Welk GJ, Joens-Matre R, Hensley L. The predictive utility of the children’s physical activity correlates (CPAC) scale across multiple grade levels. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:59–69.Google Scholar
Schary DP, Cardinal BJ, Loprinzi PD. Early child development and care parental support exceeds parenting style for promoting active play in preschool children. Early Child Dev Care. 2012;182:1057–69.Google Scholar
Taylor WC, Sallis JF, Dowda M, Freedson PS, Eason K, Pate RR. Activity patterns and correlates among youth: differences by weight status. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2002;14:418–31.Google Scholar
Verloigne M, Veitch J, Carver A, Salmon J, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, et al. Exploring associations between parental and peer variables, personal variables and physical activity among adolescents: a mediation analysis. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:966.Google Scholar
Zhang T, Solmon MA, Gao Z, Kosma M. Promoting school students’ physical activity: a social ecological perspective. J Appl Sport Psychol. 2012;24:92–105.Google Scholar
Aarnio M, Winter T, Kujala UM, Kaprio J. Familial aggregation of leisure-time physical activity: a three generation study. Int J Sports Med. 1997;18:549–56.Google Scholar
Anderssen N, Wold B. Parental and peer influences on leisure-time physical activity in young adolescents. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1992;63:341–8.Google Scholar
Anderssen N, Wold B, Torsheim T. Are parental health habits transmitted to their children? An eight year longitudinal study of physical activity in adolescents and their parents. J Adolesc. 2006;29:513–24.Google Scholar
Bastos JP, Araujo CLP, Hallal PC. Prevalence of insufficient physical activity and associated factors in Brazilian adolescents. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:777–94.Google Scholar
Bogaert N, Steinbeck KS, Baur LA, Brock K, Bermingham MA. Food, activity and family- environmental vs biochemical predictors of weight gain in children. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57:1242–9.Google Scholar
Campbell PT, Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Rao DC, Pérusse L, Bouchard C. Prediction of physical activity and physical work capacity (PWC150) in young adulthood from childhood and adolescence with consideration of parental measures. Am J Hum Biol. 2001;13:190–6.Google Scholar
Davison KK, Birch LL. Child and parent characteristics as predictors of change in girls’ body mass index. Int J Obes. 2001;25:1834–42.Google Scholar
Davison KK, Cutting TM, Birch LL. Parents’ activity-related parenting practices predict girls' physical activity. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2003;35:1589–95.Google Scholar
Deflandre A, Lorant J, Gavarry O, Falgairette G. Determinants of physical activity and physical and sports activities in French school children. Percept Mot Ski. 2001;92:399–414.Google Scholar
Deflandre A, Lorant J, Gavarry O, Falgairette G. Physical activity and sport involvement in French high school students. Percept Mot Ski. 2001;92:107–20.Google Scholar
Eriksson M, Nordqvist T, Rasmussen F. Associations between parents’ and 12-year-old children’s sport and vigorous activity: the role of self-esteem and athletic competence. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:359–73.Google Scholar
Fogelholm M, Nuutinen O, Pasanen M, Myöhänen E, Säätelä T. Parent–child relationship of physical activity patterns and obesity. Int J Obes. 1999;23:1262–8.Google Scholar
Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, Mâsse LC. Parent–child relationship of directly measured physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:17.Google Scholar
Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely AD, Hesketh K, Crawford D. Correlates of preschool children’s physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:159–67.Google Scholar
Jacobi D, Caille A, Borys J-M, Lommez A, Couet C, Charles M-A, et al. Parent-offspring correlations in pedometer-assessed physical activity. PLoS One. 2011;6:e29195.Google Scholar
Jago R, Sebire SJ, Wood L, Pool L, Zahra J, Thompson JL, et al. Associations between objectively assessed child and parental physical activity: a cross-sectional study of families with 5–6 year old children. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:655.Google Scholar
Kahn JA, Huang B, Gillman MW, Field AE, Austin SB, Colditz GA, et al. Patterns and determinants of physical activity in U.S. adolescents. J Adolesc Heal. 2008;42:369–77.Google Scholar
Madsen KA, McCulloch CE, Crawford P. Parent modeling: perceptions of parents’ physical activity predict girls' activity throughout adolescence. J Pediatr. 2009;154:278–83.Google Scholar
Martin-Matillas M, Ortega FB, Chillon P, Perez IJ, Ruiz JR, Castillo R, et al. Physical activity among Spanish adolescents: relationship with their relatives’ physical activity - The AVENA Study. J Sports Sci. 2011;29:329–36.Google Scholar
Nichols-English GJ, Lemmon CR, Litaker MS, Cartee SG, Yin Z, Gutin B, et al. Relations of Black mothers’ and daughters' body fatness, physical activity and behavior. Ethn Dis. 2006;16:172–9.Google Scholar
O’Loughlin J, Paradis G, Kishchuk N, Barnett T, Renaud L. Prevalence and correlates of physical activity behaviors among elementary schoolchildren in multiethnic, low income, inner-city neighborhoods in Montreal, Canada. Ann Epidemiol. 1999;9:397–407.Google Scholar
Ohta H, Kuroda T, Onoe Y, Nakano C, Yoshikata R, Ishitani K, et al. Familial correlation of bone mineral density, birth data and lifestyle factors among adolescent daughters, mothers and grandmothers. J Bone Miner Metab. 2010;28:690–5.Google Scholar
Pahkala K, Heinonen OJ, Lagström H, Hakala P, Sillanmäki L, Simell O. Leisure-time physical activity of 13-year-old adolescents. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17:324–30.Google Scholar
Raudsepp L. The relationship between socio-economic status, parental support and adolescent physical activity. Acta Paediatr. 2006;95:93–8.Google Scholar
Shropshire J, Carroll B. Family variables and children’s physical activity: influence of parental exercise and socio-economic status. Sport Educ Soc. 1997;2:95–116.Google Scholar
Siegel SR, Malina RM, Reyes MEP, Barahona EEC, Cumming SP. Correlates of physical activity and inactivity in urban Mexican youth. Am J Hum Biol. 2011;23:686–92.Google Scholar
Sigmund E, Turoňová K, Sigmundová D, Přidalová M. The effect of parents’ physical activity and inactivity on their children's physical activity and sitting. Acta Univ Palacki Olomuc. 2008;38:17–24.Google Scholar
Toftegaard-Støckel J, Nielsen G, Ibsen B, Andersen LB. Parental, socio and cultural factors associated with adolescents’ sports participation in four Danish municipalities. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011;21:606–11.Google Scholar
Trost SG, Pate RR, Saunders R, Ward DS, Dowda M, Felton G. A prospective study of the determinants of physical activity in rural fifth-grade children. Prev Med. 1997;26:257–63.Google Scholar
Trost SG, Pate RR, Ward DS, Saunders R, Riner W. Correlates of objectively measured physical activity in preadolescent youth. Am J Prev Med. 1999;17:120–6.Google Scholar
Wagner A, Klein-Platat C, Arveiler D, Haan MC, Schlienger JL, Simon C. Parent–child physical activity relationships in 12-year old French students do not depend on family socioeconomic status. Diabetes Metab. 2004;30:359–66.Google Scholar
Yang XL, Telama R, Laakso L. Parents’ physical activity, socioeconomic status and education as predictors of physical activity and sport among children and youths: a 12-year follow-up study. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 1996;31:273–91.Google Scholar
Anderson CB, Mâsse LC, Hergenroeder AC. Factorial and construct validity of the athletic identity questionnaire for adolescents. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2007;39:59–69.Google Scholar
Anderson CB, Mâsse LC, Zhang H, Coleman KJ, Chang S. Contribution of athletic identity to child and adolescent physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37:220–6.Google Scholar
Arredondo EM, Elder JP, Ayala GX, Campbell N, Baquero B, Duerksen S. Is parenting style related to children’s healthy eating and physical activity in Latino families? Health Educ Res. 2006;21:862–71.Google Scholar
Beets MW, Vogel R, Forlaw L, Pitetti KH, Cardinal BJ. Social support and youth physical activity: the role of provider and type. Am J Health Behav. 2006;30:278–89.Google Scholar
De Bourdeaudhuij I, Lefevre J, Deforche B, Wijndaele K, Matton L, Philippaerts R. Physical activity and psychosocial correlates in normal weight and overweight 11 to 19 year olds. Obes Res. 2005;13:1097–105.Google Scholar
Gubbels JS, Kremers SPJ, Stafleu A, de Vries SI, Goldbohm RA, Dagnelie PC, et al. Association between parenting practices and children’s dietary intake, activity behavior and development of body mass index: the KOALA birth cohort study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:18.Google Scholar
Hohepa M, Scragg R, Schofield G, Kolt GS, Schaaf D. Social support for youth physical activity: Importance of siblings, parents, friends and school support across a segmented school day. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:54.Google Scholar
Huang Y-J, Wong SH, Salmon J, Hui SS. Reliability and validity of psychosocial and environmental correlates measures of physical activity and screen-based behaviors among Chinese children in Hong Kong. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:16.Google Scholar
Klesges RC. The FATS: an observational system for assessing physical activity in children and associated parent behavior. Behav Assess. 1984;6:333–45.Google Scholar
Klesges RC, Malott JM, Boschee PF, Weber JM. The effects of parental influences on children’s food intake, physical activity, and relative weight. Int J Eat Disord. 1986;5:335–45.Google Scholar
Klesges RC, Eck LH, Hanson CL, Haddock CK, Klesges LM. Effects of obesity, social interactions, and physical environment on physical activity in preschoolers. Heal Psychol. 1990;9:435–49.Google Scholar
King KA, Tergerson JL, Wilson BR. Effect of social support on adolescents’ perceptions of and engagement in physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:374–84.Google Scholar
Loucaides CA, Chedzoy SM, Bennett N, Walshe K. Correlates of physical activity in a Cypriot sample of sixth-grade children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2004;16:25–36.Google Scholar
Loucaides CA, Jago R. Correlates of pedometer-assessed physical activity in Cypriot elementary school children. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:267–76.Google Scholar
Määttä S, Ray C, Roos E. Associations of parental influence and 10-11-year-old children’s physical activity: Are they mediated by children's perceived competence and attraction to physical activity? Scand J Public Health. 2014;42:45–51.Google Scholar
Mckenzie TL, Sallis JS, Nader PR, Patterson TL, Elder JP, Berry CC, et al. BEACHES: an observational system for assessing children’s eating and physical activity behaviors and associated events. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991;24:141–51.Google Scholar
McKenzie TL, Baquero B, Crespo NC, Arredondo EM, Campbell NR, Elder JP. Environmental correlates of physical activity in Mexican American children at home. J Phys Act Health. 2008;5:579–91.Google Scholar
Millstein RA, Strobel J, Kerr J, Sallis JF, Norman GJ, Durant N, et al. Home, school, and neighborhood environment factors and youth physical activity. Pediatr Exerc Sci Sci. 2011;23:487–503.Google Scholar
Moore JB, Davis CL, Baxter SD, Lewis RD, Yin Z. Physical activity, metabolic syndrome, and overweight in rural youth. J Rural Heal. 2008;24:136–42.Google Scholar
Moore JB, Beets MW, Morris SF, Kolbe MB. Day of the week is associated with meeting physical activity recommendations and engaging in excessive sedentary time in youth. J Phys Act Health. 2014;11:971–6.Google Scholar
Nelson MC, Gordon-Larsen P, Adair LS, Popkin BM. Adolescent physical activity and sedentary behavior: patterning and long-term maintenance. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:259–66.Google Scholar
Pate RR, Trost SG, Felton GM, Ward DS, Dowda M, Saunders R. Correlates of physical activity behavior in rural youth. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68:241–8.Google Scholar
Sabiston CM, Crocker PRE. Exploring self-perceptions and social influences as correlates of adolescent leisure-time physical activity. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30:3–22.Google Scholar
Beets MW, Pitetti KH, Forlaw L. The role of self-efficacy and referent specific social support in promoting rural adolescent girls’ physical activity. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31:227–37.Google Scholar
Brunet J, Sabiston CM, O’Loughlin J, Mathieu M-E, Tremblay A, Barnett T, et al. Perceived parental social support and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in children at risk of obesity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2014;85:198–207.Google Scholar
Butcher J. Socialization of adolescent girls into physical activity. Adolescence. 1983;18:753–66.Google Scholar
Butcher J. Longitudinal analysis of adolescent girls’ participation in physical activity. Sociol Sport J. 1985;2:130–43.Google Scholar
Kirby J, Levin KA, Inchley J. Parental and peer influences on physical activity among Scottish adolescents: a longitudinal study. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:785–93.Google Scholar
Stucky-Ropp RC, DiLorenzo TM. Determinants of exercise in children. Prev Med. 1993;22:880–9.Google Scholar

Copyright

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Eligibility criteria

Search strategy

Screening

Data abstraction

Analyses

Parental modeling as a correlate

Overall effect size

Moderators of child physical activity

Parental support as a correlate

Overall effect size

Moderators of child physical activity

Publication bias

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Contact us