This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 10 October 2014, At: 21:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Measurement in Physical Education andExercise SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmpe20

Reliability and Validity of OutcomeExpectancy-Related Measures in PhysicalEducationZan Gao a , Yuanlong Liu b , Ken Lodewyk c , Tao Zhang d & MariaKosma ea Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences , Texas TechUniversity , Lubbock, Texas, USAb Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation ,Western Michigan University , Kalamazoo, Michigan, USAc Department of Kinesiology , Brock University , St. Catharines,Ontariod Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation ,University of North Texas , Denton, Texas, USAe Department of Kinesiology , Louisiana State University , BatonRouge, Louisiana, USAPublished online: 29 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Zan Gao , Yuanlong Liu , Ken Lodewyk , Tao Zhang & Maria Kosma (2011)Reliability and Validity of Outcome Expectancy-Related Measures in Physical Education, Measurementin Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15:3, 155-167, DOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.590083

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2011.590083

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 15: 155–167, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1091-367X print / 1532-7841 onlineDOI: 10.1080/1091367X.2011.590083

ARTICLES

Reliability and Validity of Outcome Expectancy-RelatedMeasures in Physical Education

Zan Gao

Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

Yuanlong LiuDepartment of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Western Michigan University,

Kalamazoo, Michigan

Ken LodewykDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario

Tao ZhangDepartment of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation, University of North Texas,

Denton, Texas

Maria KosmaDepartment of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of outcome likelihood, outcomevalue, and outcome expectancy using data collected from students in secondary school physicaleducation classes. Dependent measures were examined for construct, concurrent, and predictivevalidity, as well as internal and temporal reliability. The results of the investigation indicated thefollowing. First, confirmatory factor analyses for the dependent variables (outcome likelihood, out-come value, outcome expectancy) revealed a suitable fit of the data with a hypothesized factorstructure. Second, significant associations between these variables and other personal beliefs andvalues provided sound evidence for the concurrent validity of outcome likelihood, outcome value,and outcome expectancy. Third, results of regression analyses revealed that outcome likelihoodand outcome value had strong predictive validity in predicting physical activity behaviors. Finally,

Correspondence should be sent to Zan Gao, Ph.D., Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences, Texas TechUniversity, Box 43011, Lubbock, TX 79409-3011. E-mail: zan.gao@ttu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

156 GAO ET AL.

the internal reliabilities of self-report scales for the outcome likelihood, outcome value, and out-come expectancy over a three-semester period were satisfactory. The temporal reliabilities were alsoacceptable.

Key words: concurrent validity, construct validity, internal reliability, predictive validity, temporalreliability

INTRODUCTION

Regular participation in physical activity may lead to improved physical and psychological well-being (United States Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1996, 2000); thus,motivating school children to participate in and adhere to physical activity is very important.To this sense, it is critical to explore the ways to help school children develop and maintain aphysically active lifestyle. In the literature, several theoretical frameworks (e.g., the self-efficacytheory, theory of planned behavior, and transtheoretical model) have been employed to explainphysical activity behavior and to design effective interventions for enhancing participation inphysical activity (Gao, Lee, & Harrison, 2008; Williams, Anderson, & Winnet, 2005). Socialcognitive behavioral change approaches, like the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997),have been widely used to investigate motivated behaviors in many settings, including exercise,physical activity, and health promotion.

According to self-efficacy theory, one’s behavioral change can be explained and predictedby self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, which are conceptually related to constructs such asperceived behavioral control, decision balance, and attitudes (Dawson, Gyurcsik, Culos-Reed, &Brawley, 2001; Williams et al., 2005). In contrast to self-efficacy—an individual’s beliefs regard-ing his or her abilities to learn or perform behaviors at situational specific levels (Bandura,1997)—outcome expectancy reflects a person’s beliefs concerning the likely outcomes of abehavior and perceived values for the behavior (Gao, Lodewyk, & Zhang, 2009). Compared tothe attention afforded the role of self-efficacy in sport and physical activity, outcome expectancyhas been under-emphasized as a potential factor, especially considering its emergence as afundamental construct in cognitive explanations of behavior. It appears that a more thoroughunderstanding of outcome expectancy-related measurement is needed so that interventions canbetter stimulate healthy physical activity patterns in youth.

According to Bandura (1997), outcome expectancy will follow a given behavior (Bandura,1986). It does not focus on achievement performance itself, but rather the result from thebehavior. For example, taking physical education class five times every week is the behav-ior, while learning motor skills, learning to cooperate, and developing physical conditioningare the outcomes. In addition, outcomes can be classified as physical outcomes, social reac-tions of other individuals, and self-evaluative reactions to personal behavior. To illustrate thisin physical education, outcomes could include physical consequences, such as knowing how toexercise after finishing school, developing a physically conditioned body, or learning how toimprove one’s fitness and health. Outcomes could also encompass social relations with otherindividuals (e.g., playing with friends and learning to cooperate or comply with rules) andself-evaluative reactions (e.g., relaxing from other lessons; feeling more energetic; and improv-ing self-confidence). To the best knowledge of the authors, no empirical study is available tospecifically investigate these three constructs of outcomes in physical education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 157

Based upon the self-efficacy theory, an individual’s outcome expectancy is necessary for hisor her self-efficacy to impact behaviors, but the individual will not carry out a specific behavior ifthe associated outcome expectancy is low (Bandura, 1986, 1997). The importance of an outcomeand the degree of its influence may have a great deal of variability among individuals, and there-fore, it is inappropriate to assume that outcomes can act as incentives for motivated behaviors(Maddux, 1995; Rodgers & Brawley, 1991, 1996). As a result, Maddux, Norton, and Stoltenberg(1986) added outcome values as an additional component to the self-efficacy theory. In exerciseand physical activity, Rodgers and Brawley (1991, 1996) used outcome likelihood to refer theprobability that a certain action will lead to a certain outcome and used outcome values to repre-sent the values that the individual assigns to the possible outcomes of the behavior. They furtherproposed that outcome expectancy can be formed by the interaction of outcome likelihood andoutcome value. This conceptualization is in line with the theoretical foundation that highlightedthe importance of incentives in influencing behavior (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Conceptual Relationships Between Outcome Expectancy and Relevant PersonalBeliefs

Outcome expectancy is statistically related to, yet conceptually distinct from, other personalbelief measures like self-efficacy (e.g., Kirsch, 1982). The positive relationship between self-efficacy and outcome expectancy indicates that individuals who are more efficacious tend toenvision positive outcomes or increases in expected positive outcomes and may prompt increasesin a person’s self-efficacy for performance on certain behaviors (Corcoran & Rutledge, 1989;Williams et al., 2005). However, an important conceptual distinction between self-efficacy andoutcome expectancy is that individuals can believe that a certain behavior will produce a par-ticular outcome, yet they may believe that they cannot perform the behavior (and vice versa).Further, outcome expectancy appears to be associated with expectancies for success—a com-ponent of the expectancy–value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Whereas both involve theanticipated outcome of engaging in a task, expectancies for success represent the assignment ofa probability of a “successful” outcome. Outcome expectancy focuses on the anticipated out-come of the motivated behavior. Finally, task values are the incentives that an individual has forsucceeding on a given task (Wigfield, 1994), whereas outcome expectancy includes how certainoutcomes relative to others are more desirable for different individuals. It is clear that the valuesthat an individual places on either the task (task values) or the outcome (outcome expectancy)could affect his/her motivation and behavior. Thus, it is possible that an individual values theoutcome of a task because he/she values the task and vice versa (Bandura, 1997).

Measurement Issues

Although outcome expectancy represents a central construct within social cognitive theory thathas been extensively linked to physical activity levels, more insight is needed into the motivatingrole of outcome expectancy on the same or related achievement behaviors (Williams et al., 2005).Bandura (1997) posited that outcome value may moderate the effects of outcome expectancy onphysical activity; however, outcome value has generally been incorporated into the measure-ment of outcome expectancy. For example, in most existing studies (Gao, 2008; Gao & Kosma,2008; Gao et al., 2009; Gao, Xiang, Lee, & Harrison, 2008; Rodgers & Brawley, 1991, 1996),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

158 GAO ET AL.

outcome expectancy has been measured using the multiplicative combination of outcome like-lihood and outcome value. Rodgers and Brawley (1996) provided several reasons to supportthe use of this weighted measure. First, there is no reason to expect that the measurement ofvarious outcomes can be predictors of achievement behaviors for those who do not value theoutcomes. That is, scholars need to measure outcome value together with outcome likelihoodrather than assume outcomes will be valued. Second, the weighted measure can better capturethe joint influence of outcome likelihood and outcome value. Finally, the weighted measurementis inconsistent in evaluating uncertain outcomes and events within other expectancy-value the-ories (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 195). Despite these reasons, no known study has beenconducted to examine the reliability and validity of outcome likelihood, outcome value, andoutcome expectancy, especially in the field of physical education.

Since additional research is clearly needed to alleviate such conceptual and measurementconcerns regarding outcome expectancy-related measures, this study examined the validity (con-struct, concurrent, and predictive) and the reliability (temporal and internal) of these outcomeconstructs using data collected from secondary school physical education settings with the fol-lowing objectives: (a) to examine the construct validity of outcome likelihood, outcome value,and outcome expectancy using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA); (b) to test the concurrentvalidity of these variables with which the relationships related to personal beliefs and val-ues (e.g., self-efficacy, expectancies for success, and task values) was assessed; (c) to inspectthe predictive strengths of these variables on achievement-related cognitions and behaviors(e.g., intention, persistence/effort, and in-class physical activity levels); and (d) to investigatethe internal and temporal reliability of these variables across an entire academic year (threesemesters).

METHOD

Research Setting and Procedures

The participants in this study had a 90-min physical education class taught by three physicaleducation teachers on alternate days. That is, the participants would have two or three physicaleducation classes per week. The average class size was approximately 100 students with 3 classescombined. Given the time allotted for dress change and checking attendance, the participantsusually had approximately 60 min to perform activities in class. All the teachers had more than10 years experiences and shared the instructional responsibilities for all 3 classes during the sameteaching block. A typical class involved students arriving in the gymnasium, teachers takingattendance, students participating in warm-up activities, and then the teacher leading the class ina variety of other activities designed to foster fitness and the learning of various movement andsport skills (e.g., soccer, capture the flag, and jogging/walking). In general, the teachers useda traditional method of teaching in which they led students to warm up, introduced the to-be-learned skills, organized students for practice or games during the middle period of the class, andprovided closure to the lesson near the end of the class.

Data were collected during regularly scheduled physical education classes in the gym. In thespring of 2006, the participants completed the survey questionnaire (outcome expectancy andoutcome value scales) in the gym. The average time required to complete the survey was about5 min. The primary researcher (not the physical education teacher) administered the survey by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 159

explaining how to respond to the questions. To minimize students’ tendency to give sociallydesirable responses, the students were encouraged to answer truthfully and independently. Theywere also assured that their responses were confidential and would not affect their physical edu-cation grades. In the fall of 2006, the participants completed a battery of personal beliefs andvalues scales (self-efficacy, expectancies for success, and task values) along with the outcomeexpectancy-related scales. In the spring of 2007, the participants responded to the intention forfuture participation scale and the outcome expectancy-related scales at the beginning of the phys-ical education class, and then they completed the effort/persistence scale by the end of that class.Following the completion of the survey, the students’ physical activity levels were measuredusing Actical activity monitors for one physical education class.

Participants

The participants in this study were 456 middle and high school students (sixth through tenthgrade) enrolled in one public school in a southeastern state of the United States. Based on thenature of the study, different sub-samples were used to measure validity and reliability (e.g., thetemporal reliability examines the data over time). Informed parental and child consent formswere obtained prior to conducting the study, as well as the approval from the University’sHuman Subject Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) and school district. To determine whetherthe outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy scales had satisfactory con-struct validity, another sub-sample was used, which was composed of 346 sixth through tenthgraders (144 boys, 202 girls; 101 sixth graders, 96 seventh graders, 55 eighth graders, 55 ninthgraders, and 39 tenth graders).

Additional data were then collected to examine the concurrent validity of the scales as218 sixth through eighth graders (104 boys, 114 girls; M age = 13.12, SD = .98; 69 sixthgraders, 80 seventh graders, and 69 eighth graders) completed measures on outcome likelihood,outcome value, self-efficacy, expectancies for success, and task values in the fall of 2006. Thenext step, which examined the predictive validity of the outcome likelihood, outcome value,and outcome expectancy scales to the intention for future participation, persistence/effort, andphysical activity levels, involved 225 sixth through eighth graders from the overall sample (112boys, 113 girls; M age = 13.12, SD = .98; 75 sixth graders, 75 seventh graders, and 75 eighthgraders) in the spring of 2007. To examine the internal and temporal reliability of the outcomeexpectancy, outcome value, and outcome expectancy scales, a sub-sample of 200 sixth and sev-enth grade middle school were used (109 boys, 91 girls; M age = 11.93, SD = .75), and thesestudents responded to the questionnaires over a three-semester period that started in the spring of2006.

Measures

Outcome Likelihood, Outcome Value, and Outcome Expectancy

The measures for outcome likelihood and outcome value came from a recent instrument usedby Gao et al. (2009). To measure outcome likelihood, students rated the likely occurrence of ten

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

160 GAO ET AL.

TABLE 1Items for Outcome Likelihood and Outcome Value

Scale Outcome Items

Likelihood of each outcome 1. Very unlikely2. Unlikely a little3. Unlikely a very little4. Not sure5. Likely a very little6. Likely a little7. Very likely

(1) Knowing how to exercise after finishing school(2) Developing a nice body(3) Developing physical conditioning(4) Learning how to improve fitness and health(5) Learning to cooperate(6) relaxing from other lessons(7) Feeling more energetic(8) Learning to comply with rules(9) Improving self-confidence

(10) Playing with friendsValue of each outcome 1. Very unimportant

2. Unimportant a little3. Unimportant a very little4. Not sure5. Important a very little6. Important a little7. Very important

different possible outcomes of participating in a physical education class on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). The stem was “How do you think the likelihoodof the following outcomes of attending physical education apply to you?”Sample outcome itemsincluded (a) knowing how to exercise after finishing school, (b) developing a nice body, (c) devel-oping physical conditioning, (d) learning how to improve fitness and health, and (e) learning tocooperate. To measure outcome value, students rated each of the previous outcomes in terms ofits value for them on 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = very unimportant, 7 = very important). Thestem for outcome value was “How important are the following outcomes of attending physicaleducation to you?” In this study, outcome expectancy was formed by multiplying the product ofoutcome likelihood and outcome value for each of the ten outcomes with the mean serving as theoverall score for outcome expectancy. A complete list of the outcomes can be found in Table 1.

Together with these scales measuring outcome likelihood and outcome value, participantscompleted the Self-Efficacy Scale in Physical Education (Gao, Newton, & Carlson, 2008), theExpectancies for Success Scale in Physical Education (Xiang, McBride, Guan, & Solmon, 2003),and the Task Values Scale Toward Physical Education (Xiang et al., 2003).

Self-Efficacy

The participants completed the six-item Self-Efficacy Scale in Physical Education (Gao,Newton, & Carlson, 2008). The following are some of the items included: “I have confidencein my ability to doing well in physical education,” “I have confidence in my ability to learn skillswell in physical education,” and “I have confidence in my performance in physical education.”The participants responded to the items using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree,5 = strongly agree). The means of these items were used to assess students’ self-efficacy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 161

Expectancies for Success

Using the Expectancies for Success Scale in Physical Education (Xiang et al., 2003), theparticipants were asked two questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale: (a) How good will you beat learning something new in physical education this year? (1 = very bad, 5 = very good) and(b) How well will you learn activities and games in physical education this year? (1 = not at allwell, 5 = very well). The mean score of these items was used to assess students’ expectancies forsuccess.

Task Values

The Task Values Scale Toward Physical Education (Xiang et al., 2003) has three components:(a) importance, (b) interest, and (c) usefulness. Six items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. Sample items included: (a) For me, being good at the activities in physical educationis . . . (1 = not very important, 5 = very important); (b) In general, I find that learning newactivities in physical education is . . . (1 = “way” boring, 5 = “way” fun); and (c) Compared toyour other school subjects, how useful is what you learn in physical education? (1 = not usefulat all, 5 = very useful). The average score of these six items was used as an overall indication ofstudents’ task values toward physical education.

Intention for Future Participation in Physical Education

The Intention for Future Participation in Physical Education Scale was previously developedand used by Xiang et al. (2003). This scale asked students to respond to a single question ratedon a 5-point Likert-type scale: When you get to high school, you will have a choice whetheryou want to take physical education. How much would you want to take it? (1 = not at all,5 = very much).

Persistence/Effort

The Persistence/Effort Scale (Guan, Xiang, McBride, & Bruene, 2006) included eight itemsassessing persistence and effort. In this study, students rated each item on a 7-point Likert-typescale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The stem for these items was“In this physical education class . . .” Sample items were: (a) When I have a trouble performingsome skills, I go back and practice; (b) When something that I am practicing is difficult, I spendextra time and effort trying to do it right; (c) I put a lot effort into preparing for skill tests; and(d) I work very hard to prepare for our skill tests. The mean of these items was used as the valuesof students’ persistence/effort in physical education.

Physical Activity Levels

To measure students’ in-class physical activity levels, Actical activity monitors were utilized(Mini-Mitter Co., Inc., Bend, Oregon, USA) for one regularly scheduled physical education class.Specifically, the Actical devices were worn at the students’ hip and could record physical activ-ity counts for up to approximately 12 days using 15-sec epochs. The devices represent usefulphysical activity monitors for children. For example, researchers have demonstrated acceptable

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

162 GAO ET AL.

validity and reliability of Actical activity monitors when used with children (e.g., Puyau, Adolph,Vohra, Zakeri & Butte, 2004). Given the duration (short period) of the physical education class,activity counts were measured in 15-sec epochs to better capture the activity patterns of chil-dren. Physical activity levels were quantified as average activity counts per minute (averagecount/min) for activities of moderate to vigorous intensity. Average physical activity levels werecalculated by dividing the mean activity counts accumulated during activities of moderate tovigorous intensity by the duration of the physical education class (i.e., 60 min).

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed in four steps. First, CFA was employed to examine the construct validityof outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy with students’ scores. The fourindices assessing the goodness of fit (GFI) for the models were the following: (a) Chi-squaredivided by degrees of freedom (χ2/df ), (b) the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), (c) theGFI index, and (d) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Among these indices,a value less than 3.0 for χ2/df is indicative of a close fit for the model (McIver & Carmines1981). However, it should be noted that χ2/df is influenced by sample size. Hatcher (1994)suggested that χ2/df should be used only as a very rough rule of thumb (p. 250). Values largerthan .90 for the second and third indices (Hu & Bentler, 1995), and less than .08 for the RMSEA,indicate good model fit (Browne & Gudeck, 1993). All CFAs were conducted using the SAS9.1 system’s PROC CALIS, in which the data were entered as a covariance matrix. Maximumlikelihood procedures were used, and the latent factors were allowed to correlate freely with oneanother.

Second, Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to evaluate correlationsbetween the study variables and the personal beliefs and values variables. Additionally, Dawsonet al. (2001) proposed an insightful approach to use multiple regression analysis to measure theappropriateness of outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy. By doing thistype of analysis, three predictor variables were calculated: (a) the sum of ten outcome likeli-hood items, (b) the sum of ten outcome value items, and (c) the sum of ten outcome expectancyitems (multiplying the sum of outcome likelihood items and the sum of outcome value items).The criterion variable is then regressed on each of these three variables, with the interactionterm always being entered last. Similar to the testing moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986), ifthe interaction term is significant, then the interaction of the two summed variables adds uniquevariance to the prediction of the criterion variable. Therefore, three multiple regression anal-yses were employed to examine the relative contributions of students’ outcome likelihood,outcome value, and outcome expectancy to their intention, persistence/effort, and in-class phys-ical activity levels, respectively. Finally, the internal and temporal reliability of self-report scalesfor the dependent variables (outcome likelihood, outcome value, outcome expectancy) over athree-semester period were calculated using intra class Pearson correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Construct Validity

The GFI indices were χ2/df = 3.69, CFI = .95, GFI = .94, and RMSEA = .08 for the outcomelikelihood scale; 4.29, .95, .93, and .08 for the outcome value scale; and 3.09, .97, .95, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 163

.07 for the outcome expectancy scale. Although χ2/df for outcome likelihood, outcome value,and outcome expectancy was greater than 3.0, CFA revealed a good fit of the data with thethree-factor models (physical outcomes, social reactions, and self-evaluative reactions) for theseconstructs. Because both the CFI and GFI met or exceeded the minimum guideline of .90, and theRMSEA was equal or less than .08, the data were deemed to have an adequate fit to the models.The results of CFA provided strong support for the construct validity of the outcome likelihood,outcome value, and outcome expectancy scales.

Concurrent Validity

It was expected that if the outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy scaleshave reasonable concurrent validity, they would correlate strongly with other scales that measurepersonal beliefs and values about outcomes of a given behavior. Table 2 shows these associations.Outcome value had the highest correlation with self-efficacy, expectancies for success, and taskvalues (r = .50 to .62, p < .001), followed by outcome likelihood (r = .34 to .39, p < .001) andoutcome expectancy (r = .17 to .20, p < .05).

Predictive Validity

In each set of analyses, the outcome likelihood scores were entered into the prediction equa-tion first, followed by outcome value scores. Outcome expectancy scores were entered last inorder to determine whether outcome expectancy accounted for a significant amount of variancebeyond that explained by outcome likelihood and outcome value. The results for the multipleregressions are shown in Table 3. The results revealed that outcome likelihood predicted stu-dents’ intention in the first step, F (1, 205) = 29.39, p < .01. Outcome value was also significantwhen entered into the second step of the model, F (1, 204) = 3.69, p < .05, indicating thatwhen the variance explained by outcome likelihood was controlled, outcome value accountedfor a significant portion of the variability related to intention. Outcome expectancy failed toadd any significant contribution to the prediction at the last step. Similarly, outcome likeli-hood and outcome value accounted for a significant variance in students’ persistence/effortand in-class physical activity levels when entered in the first two steps, while outcomeexpectancy again failed to make significant contributions to the predictions at the last step (seeTable 3).

TABLE 2Correlations Between Outcome Expectancy, Outcome Value, Outcome

Expectancy Scales, and Related Motivational Beliefs (N = 218)

Outcome likelihood Outcome value Outcome expectancy

Self-efficacy .20∗ .62∗∗ .39∗∗Expectancies for success .20∗ .50∗∗ .35∗∗Task values .17∗ .54∗∗ .34∗∗

∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

164 GAO ET AL.

TABLE 3Results of Hierarchical Multiple Regression on Students’ Intention, Physical Activity Levels, and Persistence

Dependent Variables Predictors β R2 R2 Change F Value

Intention (N = 207)Outcome likelihood .35 .125 .125 29.39∗∗Outcome value .20 .141 .016 3.69∗Outcome expectancy .12 .141 .00 0.068

Physical activitylevels (N = 200)

Outcome likelihood .31 .094 .094 20.65∗∗Outcome value .19 .109 .014 3.65∗Outcome expectancy .02 .109 .00 0.001

Persistence (N = 135)Outcome likelihood .68 .46 .46 113.59∗∗Outcome value .23 .476 .016 4.10∗Outcome expectancy .05 .476 .00 0.015

Note: β values are standardized regression coefficients of the regression analysis; R2 values are cumulative, witheach incremental step adding to the variance explained.

∗p < .05; ∗∗p < .001.

Internal and Temporal Reliability

The respective internal reliability coefficients were as follows: .90, .93, and .91 for outcome like-lihood; .93, .95, and .94 for outcome value; and .92, .96, and .95 for outcome expectancy. Thefindings indicated high reliability coefficients of outcome likelihood, outcome value, and out-come expectancy. The means and standard deviations for the three waves were as follows: 5.71(SD = 1.09), 5.54 (SD = 1.15), and 5.22 (SD = 1.03) for outcome likelihood; 5.98 (SD = 1.14),5.54 (SD = 1.22), and 5.34 (SD = 1.14) for outcome value; 35.02 (SD = 10.67), 31.84(SD = 11.90), and 28.93 (SD = 10.89) for outcome expectancy. In addition, the temporal reli-ability of these variables was .72, .64, and .69, respectively, signaling acceptable and consistentreliability over the three points in a two-year period of time.

DISCUSSION

Results from the analyses offer strong evidence for the adequacy of the reliability and validityof outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy. The internal and temporal reli-ability for these measures was acceptable and consistent over the three-semester period. Theseresults lead to the inference that integrating outcome likelihood and outcome value as a measureof outcome expectancy reliably captures students’ outcome beliefs toward active participation inphysical education.

The CFA in the second phase of the study demonstrated that the hypothesized factor struc-ture (physical outcomes, social outcomes, and self-evaluative or psychological outcomes) fit thesample data and confirmed the appropriateness of using outcome likelihood, outcome value,and outcome expectancy in secondary school physical education settings. The construct validity

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 165

for these outcome variables was further justified by the favorable psychometric properties thatemerged within this secondary school student population. In other words, the indices used in thisstudy were in the acceptable range, indicating that the measures produced valid scores. Resultsalso suggest that the three types of outcomes represent related but distinct constructs. Since thisstudy focused specifically on secondary school students, further research may be needed to deter-mine whether these three types of outcomes are consistent for other physical activity settings(e.g., structured physical activity programs, unstructured exercise).

The outcome likelihood, outcome value, and outcome expectancy measures also showed solidconcurrent validity, yielding a host of significant associations with three other personal beliefsand values (self-efficacy, expectancies for success, and task values). In other words, students whoare more likely to see the likely outcomes of a behavior and value the outcomes of this behaviortend to have higher ability beliefs to learn and perform the behavior. They are also more likely toanticipate positive or successful outcomes and value the task to learn and perform the behavior.For example, increasing awareness of the benefits of physical education (e.g., increased fitnessand motor skills, learning team work) and the values of these benefits may increase students’self-efficacy in learning and performing motor skills or movement in physical education, andthis can subsequently increase students’ beliefs about how well they will do on upcoming tasksand how much they may value those tasks.

The results of the study also revealed that outcome value has strong predictive validity withachievement-related cognition and behaviors, as it explained significant variation beyond thatexplained by outcome likelihood at the second step of the regression analysis. However, out-come expectancy failed to add significant variance to the prediction of any criterion variable atthe last step. Consequently, the data did not support the notion that the weighted measurement(outcome expectancy) had superiority over the separate constructs, such as outcome likelihoodand outcome value (Gao, Xiang, Lee, & Harrison, 2008; Rodgers & Brawley, 1996). The impor-tance and influence of an outcome may vary highly among individuals; thus, it is crucial not topresume that outcomes could always act as incentives for motivated behavior (Maddux, Brawley,& Boykin, 1995). It is possible that outcome value might moderate the effect of outcome likeli-hood on achievement behaviors. For example, a valued positive outcome will increase behaviormore than an outcome that is not valued (Williams et al., 2005). In fact, some researchers haveincluded outcome value as an independent variable in the self-efficacy theory (e.g., Blalock,Bunker, & DaVillis, 1994; Maddux et al., 1986; Sexton, Tuckman, & Crehan, 1992). In theirstudies, outcome value has been a significant independent predictor of behavioral intentions andpsychological criterion.

The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to its limitations. First,the participants came from one single school site. Some participants were measured multipletimes, and therefore, the potential carry-over effect was not controlled. Future studies needto recruit a large number of diverse students from multiple school sites to conduct the cross-validation investigation and increase the accuracy and generalizability of the findings. Second,students’ past experiences with physical education might have a strong impact on their outcomeexpectancy, outcome value, relevant personal beliefs, and behaviors in physical education. It isalso important to examine students’ beliefs and behaviors in combination with prior experienceswith physical education in the future. Additionally, the learning activities (e.g., soccer, capturethe flag, walking/jogging) in physical education classes may influence students’ motivationalbeliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, outcome expectancy) and behaviors (e.g., physical activity levels).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

166 GAO ET AL.

However, the potential effect of the learning activity on students’ beliefs and behaviors were notinvestigated in this study. Future researchers should take this factor into account, particularlywhen conducting studies that have multiple learning activities involved.

In summary, this study’s findings indicate that outcome likelihood, outcome value, and out-come expectancy have satisfactory construct validity, concurrent validity, and reliability. Theresults also lead to the conclusion that outcome expectancy did not function as an interactionvariable for outcome likelihood or outcome value, which signals the inadequacy of incorporatingoutcome value in a measure of outcome expectancy. Instead, it appears to be imperative to mea-sure the interaction effect between outcome likelihood and outcome value in the field of physicalactivity and exercise. Physical activity professionals and health promotion researchers need tomeasure longitudinal interaction of outcome likelihood and outcome value along with physicalactivity changes to more clearly determine temporal changes in physical activity motivation andbehaviors.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:

Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.Blalock, S. J., Bunker, B. J., & DaVillis, R. F. (1994). Psychological distress among survivors of burn injury: The role of

outcome expectations and perceptions of importance. Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, 15, 421–427.Browne, M. W., & Gudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.),

Testing structure equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Corcoran, K. J., & Rutledge, M. W. (1989). Efficacy expectation changes as a function of hypothetical incentives in

smokers. Psychology of Additive Behavior, 3, 22–29.Dawson, K. A., Gyurcsik, N. C., Culos-Reed, S. N., & Brawley, L. R. (2001). Perceived control: A construct that bridges

theories of motivated behavior. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 321–356).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gao, Z. (2008). College students’ motivation in weight training: A combined perspective. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31,22–43.

Gao, Z., & Kosma, M. (2008). Intention as a mediator of weight training behavior among college students: An integrativeframework. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 363–374.

Gao, Z., Lee, A. M., & Harrison, L. (2008). Understanding students’ motivation in sport and physical education: Fromthe expectancy-value model and self-efficacy theory perspectives. Quest, 60, 236–254.

Gao, Z., Lodewyk, K., & Zhang, T. (2009). The role of ability beliefs and incentives in middle school students’ intentions,cardiovascular fitness, and effort. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 3–20.

Gao, Z., Newton, M., & Carson, R. L. (2008). Students’ motivation, physical activity levels, and health-related physicalfitness in fitness class. Middle Grades Research Journal, 3, 21–39.

Gao, Z., Xiang, P., Lee, A. M., & Harrison, L. (2008). Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in beginning weight trainingclass: Their relations to behavioral intentions and actual behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79,92–100.

Guan, J., Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Bruene, A. (2006). Achievement goals, social goals, and students’ reportedpersistence and effort in high school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 58–74.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF OUTCOME EXPECTANCY 167

Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts,issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). London: Sage.

Kirsch, I. (1982). Efficacy expectation or response predictions: The meaning of efficacy ratings as a function of taskcharacteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 132–136.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Looking for common ground: A comment on Kirsch and Bandura. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. New York, NY: Plenum.

Maddux, J. E., Brawley, L., & Boykin, A. (1995). Self-efficacy and healthy behavior: Prevention, promotion, anddetection. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application(pp. 173–202). New York: Plenum.

Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1986). Self-efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and outcomevalue: Relative effects on behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 783–789.

McIver, J. P., & Carmines, E. G. (1981). Unidimensional scaling. Quantitative Applications in Social Science, 24,96–107.

Puyau, M. R., Adolph, A. L., Vohra, F. A., Zakeri, I., & Butte, N. F. (2004). Prediction of activity energy expenditureusing accelerometers in children. Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise, 36, 1625–1631.

Rodgers, W. M., & Brawley, L. R. (1991). The role of outcome expectations in participation motivation. Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 13, 411–427.

Rodgers, W. M., & Brawley, L. R. (1996). The influence of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy on the behavioralintentions of novice exercisers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 618–634.

Sexton, T. L., Tuckman, B. W., & Crehan, K. (1992). An investigation of the patterns of self-efficacy, outcomeexpectation, outcome value, and performance across trials. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 329–348.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (1996). Physical activity and health: A report ofthe Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (2000). Healthy people 2010 (2nd ed., pp. 22–28).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective. EducationalPsychology Review, 6, 49–78.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25, 116–119.

Williams, D. M., Anderson, E. S., & Winnet, R. A. (2005). A review of the outcome expectancy construct in physicalactivity research. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 70–79.

Xiang, P., McBride, R., Guan, J. M., & Solmon, M. A. (2003). Children’s motivation in elementary physical education:An expectancy-value model of achievement choice. Research Quarterly for Sport and Exercise, 74, 25–35.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 21:

06 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014