Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis
- Christopher A Yao1Email author and
- Ryan E Rhodes1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-015-0163-y
© Yao and Rhodes; licensee BioMed Central. 2015
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
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
PRISMA flow-chart.
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
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) |
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 | 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 | 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* | |||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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) | |||||
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 | ||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
Mota (1998) [53] Portugal | N = 45 | CS | Parent self-report | Child self-report | Children’s PA & parents’ VPA: r = .14 | .17 |
.88 | .72 | Children’s PA & parents’ MPA: r = .13 | ||||
18 m, 27 f | ||||||
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* | ||||
α = .80 (all mothers) | ||||||
2-5 yrs | ||||||
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* | |||||
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 | ||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
Polley et al. (2005) [59] USA | N = 87 | CS | Parent self-report | Child self-report | Children’s PA & parents’ PA: r = .11 | .16 |
Children | .70* | .70* | ||||
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 | 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 | ||||||
Singh et al. (2009) [63] USA | N = 68288 | CS | Parent report | Parent report | Children’s VPA & parents’ PA: r = .24* | .34 |
Age range: 6–17 yrs | .70* | .70* | *controlled for other covariates | |||
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 | |||||
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 | ||||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
Mean r = .135 |
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 | ||||
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 | |||||
Dowda et al. (2011) [40] USA | N = 369 | CS | Parent report | Accelerometer (2 wk) | Children’s MVPA & parental support: β = .28 | .34 |
Parental support – aggregated measure (encourage, coactivity, transportation, watching child, providing information) | .80* | |||||
175 m, 194 f | 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* | |||||
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 | ||||
Test-retest .65 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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* | |||||
α = .79 (92% respondents mothers) | ||||||
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 | |||||
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 | Test-retest .86 | |||||
test-retest .83 | ||||||
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) | |||||
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) | |||||
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 | |||||
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 | ||||
.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 |
Parental support – aggregated measure (encourage, co-activity, transportation, watch, inform) | PAEC-Q | |||||
82 m, 94 f | ||||||
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) | |||||
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 | ||||||
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* | ||||
.81 (94% respondents mothers) | ||||||
4.3 yrs | ||||||
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 |
Parental support – aggregated & individual measures (encouragement, transportation, co-activity, watch, inform) | PAEC-Q | |||||
90 m, 105 f | ||||||
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 (<85th percentile BMI); partial r = .13, p = .45 (>85th 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 | ||||
Test-retest .88 | ||||||
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 | |||||
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) | |||||
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) | |||||
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 | ||||||
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 |
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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* | |||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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) | |||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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* | |||||
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 | ||||||
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 | |||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 (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 | ||||||
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 | .98 | |||||
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* | |||||
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 |
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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) | |||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | |||||
.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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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 | .98 | |||||
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* | |||||
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 | |||||
Boys’ PA (cohort 3) & mothers’ PA: r = .08 | ||||||
N = 598 | Mean r = .07 | |||||
286 m, 312 f | ||||||
15 yrs at baseline |
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 | 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 | ||
.70* | *Adjusted for parent’s age, marital status, employment, & education | |||||
6.0 yrs | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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) | ||||
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 | |||||
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 | |||||
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 | ||
Test-retest .65 | 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 | |||||
.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* | |||||
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 | ||||
.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 | |||||
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 | |||||
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* | |||||
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 | .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) | |||||
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* | 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 | ||||
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 | ||||||
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 |
14.9 yrs at baseline | .70* | .70* | ||||
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) | |||||
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 | ||||||
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) | |||||
4.3 yrs | .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 | ||
Children’s PA (monitor) & transportation: r = .02 | .03 | |||||
12.1 yrs | ICC = .88 | ICC = .79 | Children’s PA (monitor) & watching: r = .16 | .20 | ||
α = .77 | 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 | ||||||
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 | ||||
.70* (96% respondents mothers) | .70* | |||||
8.3 yrs | ||||||
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 | |||||
.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 |
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 | |||||
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 | ||||
Girls’ MVPA & maternal support: r = .10 | ||||||
ICC = .81 | Girls’ MVPA & maternal support: r = .20 (normal weight) | |||||
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* | |||||
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 | .70* | |||||
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 | |||
Father α = .74 | ||||||
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 | ||||||
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) | |||
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 | |||||
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) |
Parental modeling as a correlate
Overall effect size
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 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r | 95% CI | r | 95% CI | |||||||
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 | ||
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).
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 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r | 95% CI | r | 95% CI | |||||||
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 | ||
Parental support as a correlate
Overall effect size
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 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
r | 95% CI | r | 95% CI | |||||||
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 Locationa | ||||||||||
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 | ||
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
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.
