Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Development and evaluation of the psychometric properties of the

parents Perceptions of Physical Activity Importance and their
Childrens Ability Questionnaire (PPPAICAQ)
Guillaume Martinent a, *, Matilda Naisseh a,1, Claude Ferrand b, 2, Julien E. Bois c, 3,
Christophe Hautier a, 4
a
Universit de Lyon-Universit Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre de Recherche et dInnovation sur le Sport, UFRSTAPS, 27-29 Boulevard du 11 Novembre,
69622 Villeurbanne, France
b
EA Psychologie des ges de la vie, Universit Franois Rabelais, 3 rue des Tanneurs BP 4103, 37041 Tours cdex 1 Tours, France
c
Universit de Pau et des Pays de lAdour, Laboratoire Activit Physique, Performance et Sant, Dpartement STAPS Quartier Bastillac, 65000 Tarbes, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to develop and psychometrically evaluate a new
Received 19 November 2012 measure of parental perceptions grounded in the Eccles parental socialization framework: the Parents
Received in revised form Perceptions of Physical Activity Importance and their Childrens Ability Questionnaire (PPPAICAQ).
9 February 2013
Design: Cross-sectional with self-reported questionnaires.
Accepted 12 May 2013
Method: The total sample comprised 1100 parents of children (6e11 years old) and was randomly divided
Available online 22 May 2013
in third (one calibration and two validation samples). Data were analyzed with reliability, conrmatory
factor analyses (CFA), multi-group CFAs as well as with correlational analyses.
Keywords:
Children
Results: Results of the initial conrmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of the 2-factor 12-item model on the
Conrmatory factor analysis calibration sample resulted in a poor t to the data. Re-estimation of the PPPAICAQ resulted in the
Parents perception deletion of 4 initial items. The 2-factor 8-item model revealed a good t to the data for the three samples.
Physical activity Results of two multiple-group CFAs showed that the nal model was partially invariant across the father
and mother as well as the boy and girl samples. The patterns of relationships between parents moti-
vation, parents support and the PPPAICAQ subscales provided evidence for the criterion-related validity
of the PPPAICAQ.
Conclusion: This study provided support for the reliability and validity of the PPPAICAQ. The PPPAICAQ is
an instrument that will be useful for theoretically-driven research on parental socialization inuence on
children PA.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Research has consistently demonstrated the role of physical ac-
tivity (PA) in contributing to the physical, psychological, and social
health and well-being of children (e.g., Heitzler, Martin, Duke, &
Huhman, 2006; Horn & Horn, 2007; Martinsen & Stephens, 1994).
Therefore, it is of crucial importance to identify and explore the
factors and/or mechanisms which should inuence PA during
childhood. Researchers have suggested that a complex arrangement
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 33 4 72 43 28 38; fax: 33 4 72 43 28 46.
E-mail addresses: guillaume.martinent@univ-lyon1.fr (G. Martinent),
matilda.naisseh@yahoo.com (M. Naisseh), claude_ferrand@yahoo.fr (C. Ferrand),
julien.bois@univ-pau.fr (J.E. Bois), christophe.hautier@univ-lyon1.fr (C. Hautier).
1
Tel.: 33 4 72 43 28 38; fax: 33 4 72 43 28 46.
2
Tel.: 33 2 47 36 65 51; fax: 33 2 47 36 64 84.
3
Tel.: 33 5 62 56 61 00; fax: 33 5 62 56 61 10.
4
Tel.: 33 4 72 43 28 48; fax: 33 4 72 43 28 46.
of inuences is involved in shaping childrens PA behavior (e.g., Trost
et al., 2003) among which several social sources (peers, coaches/
teachers, parents) of inuence clearly impact childrens PA (Bois,
Sarrazin, Brustad, Trouilloud, & Cury, 2005; Brustad, 1992; Brustad,
Babkes, & Smith, 2001; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, 2005). Because
the majority of childrens free time prior to adolescence is spent
within the context of the family, family socialization is an important
contributor to childrens PA participation (Bois et al., 2005; Fredricks
& Eccles, 2004, 2005). Parents play an important role in the early PA
socialization of their children, but their inuence decreases in
adolescence when peers take on a more prominent role (Fredricks &
Eccles, 2004). Thus, this study focused on parents of children aged
between six and eleven years old.
A conceptual model which seems particularly useful for under-
standing family socialization in the PA context is the parental so-
cialization framework of Eccles and her colleagues (Eccles, 2005;

1469-0292/$ e see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.05.008
720 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
Eccles, Freedman-Doan, Frome, Jacobs, & Yoon, 2000; Eccles &
Harold, 1991; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). Using this model to
explore childrens individual differences in PA participation could
help address the concern that much of the existing research in PA
socialization has been atheoretical (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004).
According to the parental socialization framework of Eccles, the
two most important predictors of childrens participation in PA are
childrens expectations for success and subjective task value
(Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). Subjective task value comprises
intrinsic value (enjoyment of the PA), utility value (usefulness of
the task for their future goals), attainment value (personal
importance of doing well the task) as well as costs (perceived
negative aspects of engaging in the task). Children will have higher
rates of PA participation if they: (a) believe that PA is important to
their short- and long-range goals, (b) perceive that they have high
PA ability, (c) have higher enjoyment of PA, and (d) perceive low
costs of involvement.
Through their beliefs and practices, parents teach children
values and provide them with opportunities that inuence their
choice of PA (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). Because PA is a highly public
context, parents have several opportunities to provide immediate
and specic feedback to their children (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004).
Through this feedback, parents can positively inuence enjoyment
of sports and self-concept development but unrealistic expecta-
tions and too much parental pressure can also produce negative
outcomes (Brustad et al., 2001; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). In this
perspective, the Eccles expectancy-value model would be useful
because Eccles and her colleagues expanded their model to focus
on how parents shape childrens PA participation (Fredricks &
Eccles, 2004, 2005). According to this framework, parents may in-
uence childrens PA participation by being interpreters of expe-
rience (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002, 2004, 2005). Parents help to
interpret their childrens experiences by providing messages about
the likelihood that children will attain success in a particular
achievement domain, in combination with messages about the
value of participating in that activity (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). As
interpreters, parents help children to develop cognitions related to
PA behaviors and outcomes. In this perspective, parents who have
high perceptions of children physical ability and provide messages
about the value of participating in PA (high perceptions of impor-
tance of childrens PA) will have children who are more active and
have more favorable motivation outcomes (Fredricks & Eccles,
2004, 2005).
However, a signicant limitation in this area is that most studies
have used childrens perceptions rather than parents own per-
ceptions (e.g., ability and importance of their children PA) or be-
haviors (e.g., parental support) regarding the PA involvement of
their sons and daughters (e.g., Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). Never-
theless, some studies recently showed positive relationships be-
tween: (a) Parents Perceptions of their Childrens Ability in PA
(PPCAPA) and childrens own ratings of their athletic ability (Bois,
Sarrazin, Brustad, Trouilloud, & Cury, 2002; Fredricks & Eccles,
2002, 2005) or childrens involvement in PA (Bois et al., 2005;
Kimiecik & Horn, 1998), and (b) Parents Perceived Importance of
their Childrens PA (PPICPA), childrens perception of their ability in
PA and the fact that children are physically active (Eccles & Harold,
1991; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Heitzler et al., 2006).
Despite their respective strengths and weaknesses, these
studies have mainly investigated parents perceptions in using
unpublished self-report and/or self-report measures not psycho-
metrically validated (Bois et al., 2002, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles,
2002, 2005; Trost et al., 2003) which constitutes another limita-
tion in the study of the parental PA socialization process.
A particularly important measurement issue is also that the in-
struments that have been used to date to study parental inuence
have not been grounded in theory (e.g., Heitzler et al., 2006;
Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003). The development of an
inventory grounded in a theory for measuring parents perceptions
is an important step in this area in order to be able to interpret
research ndings in relation to theory. What is needed to further
explore the domain of parental inuence on childrens PA is a valid
and reliable measure of parents perceptions developed according
to a prominent theory (Eccles framework).
In this article, we describe the development and some validity
evidence of a scale to measure the parents perceptions of PPICPA
and PPCAPA which are postulated in the Eccles framework.
Construct validation is conceptualized as a process that involves
three stages: substantive, structural, and external (e.g., Schutz,
Distefano, Benson, & Davis, 2004). The substantive stage of
construct validation denes and delineates the construct under
investigation. The structural stage pertains to establishing evidence
of factorial validity and reliability relative to the construct of in-
terest. The external stage examines whether the construct under
investigation is related to other variables in accordance with the
theoretical expectations. This article addresses the efforts we have
made in all three of the stages of construct validation.
The substantive stage focused on investigating the potential
content domain of the constructs of the two parents perceptions
postulated in the Eccles parental socialization framework:
importance of their childrens PA (PPICPA) and childrens ability
(PPCAPA). Previous research has mainly investigated the PPCAPA
dimension (Bois et al., 2002, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2002, 2005;
Kimiecik & Horn, 1998). These studies highlighted the central role
played by this parental perception on childrens own perceptions
(e.g., athletic ability) or behavior in relation to PA (e.g., involve-
ment in PA). As an illustration of this literature, Bois et al. (2005)
examined the inuence of fathers and mothers PA involvement
and perceptions of their childrens physical ability upon childrens
perceptions of ability and childrens time spent in PA. They
explored two forms of parental socialization inuence: the direct
inuence of parents actual PA behavior (role modeling) on chil-
drens PA and the indirect inuence of parents beliefs systems
about their childrens PA ability on childrens PA through childrens
self-perceptions (Bois et al., 2005). Results of Bois et al.s (2005)
study suggested that the inuence of fathers and mothers may
be manifested in different ways. On the one hand, mothers role
modeling behavior had a direct effect on childrens time spent in
PA and mothers beliefs about their childs ability had an indirect
effect on childrens PA by inuencing childrens perceived ability
which, in turn, contributed to childrens level of PA involvement
(Bois et al., 2005). On the other hand, fathers beliefs directly
inuenced their childs PA as did the childrens own self-
perceptions of ability.
The PPICPA dimension of the Eccles expectancy-value model
involves the value that parents give to their childrens participation
in PA. The critical element within this dimension is the importance
placed by parents on their childrens PA because of the psycho-
logical and physical health benets that PA could provide to their
children. Previous research showed that this dimension could in-
uence childrens perception of their own sport ability, childrens
behavior in relation to PA and/or parents support for their children
to be physically active (Bois & Sarrazin, 2006; Fredricks & Eccles,
2002; Heitzler et al., 2006; Trost et al., 2003). For example,
Fredricks and Eccles (2002) examined the inuence of parents
beliefs (childrens competence and value) on the beliefs of their
children across two domains of achievement (sport and math).
Results of this study showed that parents beliefs were more pre-
dictive in sports than in math, highlighting the important role that
parents play in socializing childrens athletic motivation (Brustad,
1992). Interestingly, fathers beliefs were more strongly associated
 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
with childrens sports competence and value beliefs. The impor-
tance of fathers in this domain may reect fathers greater
involvement and investment in their childrens athletic participa-
tion (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002). In sum, previous research has
highlighted the central role played by the two dimensions of par-
ents perceptions postulated in the Eccles framework (PPICPA and
PPCAPA) on their childrens own perceptions and behavior.
In order to explore the external stage of construct validation, we
collected data on parents support for their childrens PA and parents
motivation in their own PA. Previous study consistently showed
signicant relationships between parents support for their chil-
drens PA and PPICPA and PPCAPA (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, 2005;
Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003). We examined parents
motivation in their own PA using the framework of the Self Deter-
mination Theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 2000). From a SDT perspective,
different types of motivation underlie human behavior. These types
of motivation are posited to differ in their inherent levels of self-
determination. Self-determination involves a sense of feeling free
in doing what one has chosen to do. Listed on a continuum from high
to low levels of self-determination, these motivations are intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation (Guay, Vallerand,
& Blanchard, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is completely self-
determined and refers to the participation in activities for the
feeling of enjoyment, satisfaction and interest in the activities
themselves (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Extrinsic motivation pertains to a
wide variety of behaviors where the goals of action extend beyond
those inherent in the activity itself (Guay et al., 2000). Different types
of extrinsic motivations have been proposed by SDT. Identied
regulation refers to behaviors that occur when individuals perceive
the activity as important to their personal goals and values whereas
external regulation is the lowest self-determined type of extrinsic
motivation and refers to the engagement in activities for external
reasons such as rewards or beneces (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Thus,
intrinsic motivation and identied regulation represent autonomous
forms of motivation as they reect participation though volition and
choice whereas external regulation is a highly controlled form of
motivation as it reects participation for external reasons (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Finally, amotivation refers to the absence of motiva-
tion toward the activity. Amotivated behaviors are the least self-
determined because there is no sense of purpose and no expecta-
tions of reward (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Guay et al., 2000).
A theoretical issue of particular importance is the relationship
between parental PA motives from a SDT perspective and parental
belief systems toward their childrens PA that inuence the social-
ization process of their children from an expectancy-value
perspective using the framework of Eccles. According to the
parental socialization framework of Eccles, parents shape childrens
beliefs by providing them with messages about their ability and the
value of participating in activities (parental beliefs) that help them to
interpret their experiences in achievement contexts. SDT would
allow examining other antecedents of the parents beliefs toward
their childrens PA than the one proposed by Eccles. The different
types of motivation postulated in the SDT could contribute to
develop parental belief systems about PA that would in turn inu-
ence parental socialization practices. It is plausible to hypothesize
that parents who practice PA for the feeling of pleasure, enjoyment,
and interest in the activities themselves (intrinsic motivation)
develop parental belief systems characterized by high perceptions of
their childrens ability and importance of participating in PA, which
in turn could increase PA participation of their children. The same
mechanism could operate among parents who perceive PA as
important to their personal goals and values (identied regulation).
Although no study to our knowledge examined the link between
SDT and the Eccles expectancy socialization model, preliminary
results consistent with our suggestions have nevertheless been
721
offered by a study from Fredricks and Eccles (2004). These authors
showed the facilitative role played by parents enjoyment in their
own PA on childrens PA participation (Fredricks & Eccles, 2004). A
child would be more likely to imitate a parent who participates in
PA for the feelings of enjoyment, satisfaction and interest (intrinsic
motivation) than a parent who has the same PA level but enjoys it
less (Zecevic, Tremblay, Lovsin, & Michel, 2010). SDT (Deci & Ryan,
2000) offers a means to further explore the role that several types
of parents motivation (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
and amotivation) could play in parents beliefs toward their chil-
drens PA. Because identied regulation and intrinsic motivation
represent increasingly self-determined forms of motivation as they
refer to behaviors performed by choice (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we
expected that these two types of parents motivation in their own
PA would be related positively to parents perceptions toward their
childrens PA. In contrast, because external regulation and amoti-
vation are viewed as increasingly controlling, non-self-determined
motivational states as they refer to situations where the individual
lacks the sense of autonomy and choice (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we
expected that these two types of parents motivation in their own
PA would not be signicantly related to parents perceptions.
The acquisition of knowledge is dependent on reliable and valid
instruments. Due to the lack of a valid and reliable published mea-
sure of parents perceptions of PPICPA and PPCAPA, the purpose of
this study was to develop and psychometrically evaluate a new
measure of parental perceptions grounded in the Eccles parental
socialization framework: the Parents Perceptions of Physical Activity
Importance and their Childrens Ability Questionnaire (PPPAICAQ).
The validity and reliability of the PPPAICAQ were examined (struc-
tural stage). Subsequently, the criterion related validity of the
PPPAICAQ was examined through the relationships of the PPPAICAQ
subscales with parents motivation in their own PA and parents
support for their childrens PA (external stage).
Stage 1: the structural stage of the PPPAICAQ
Method
Participants5
A total of 1100 parents (655 mothers, 445 fathers) of children
aged between 6 and 11 years old (M 8.05, SD 1.38; 17% 6 years
old, 18% 7 years old, 25% 8 years old, 21% 9 years old, 16% 10 years old,
and 2% 11 years old) voluntarily participated in the study. Only one
child per family was included (no siblings participated). The sample
was comprised primarily of Caucasian French middle to upper class
families. The children attended 9 elementary schools (28 classrooms)
coming from 5 French cities (one with a population of 500,000 in-
habitants, two from a population of 120,000e150,000 inhabitants,
and two with a population of 10,000e20,000 inhabitants).
Development of the preliminary version of the PPPAICAQ
Based on the parental socialization framework of Eccles and her
colleagues (Eccles, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, 2005), two di-
mensions of parents perceptions in relation to their childrens PA
were postulated: Parents Perceived Importance of their Childrens
PA (PPICPA) and Parents Perceptions of their Childrens Ability in
PA (PPCAPA). For the PPICPA dimension, inspection of previous
measures used in the literature highlights that: (a) each author had
5
A portion of the data provided by the sample used in this study (n 711) is also
included in a paper by Naisseh, Martinent Ferrand, and Hautier (submitted for
publication). However, none of the factor analytic or correlational results pertain-
ing to the data in this study (n 1100) are presented by Naisseh et al. (submitted
for publication). As such, there is no duplication of results.
722 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727

developed their own items to measure the construct (e.g., Eccles,
2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Jacobs & Eccles, 2000; Kimiecik &
Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003), (b) measures used are generally
composed of only one or two items (e.g., Fredricks & Eccles, 2005;
Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003), (c) previous studies have
not investigated the psychometric properties of their respective
measure of PPICPA, and (d) there is a lack of uniformity in the
construct measurement which render it difcult to compare
research ndings across studies. Given this state of affairs, we chose
to develop an initial pool of items designed to capture the core of
the construct. Based on previous measures used in the literature
(Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Heitzler et al., 2006; Jacobs & Eccles,
2000; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003), eight items were
specically developed to measure the PPICPA dimension (Table 1).
For the PPCAPA dimension, inspection of previous measures
used in the literature (e.g., Bois et al., 2005; Fredricks & Eccles,
2005) highlights that (a) there exists a relative uniformity in
construct measurement with strong overlaps between items across
different studies (Bois et al., 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005; Jacobs
& Eccles, 1992), and (b) previous studies have not assessed and/or
published psychometrics properties of their respective measure of
PPCAPA. As a consequence, we choose to use a previously unpub-
lished four-item questionnaire (Table 1) designed to measure
PPCAPA (Bois et al., 2005). Preliminary evidence suggested
acceptable reliability and internal structure for this unpublished
scale. Nevertheless, construct validity is an ongoing process.
Further reliability and validity evidence collected in independently
drawn samples is highly warranted. In sum, the preliminary version
of the PPPAICAQ consists of 12 items that assess the two di-
mensions of PPICPA (8 items; e.g., How important is to you that
your child participates in sport and/or PA out of school time?) and
PPCAPA (4 items; e.g., Compared to other children in his/her age,
how good is your child in sport and/or PA?) postulated in the
Eccles parental socialization framework. Answers are rated on a
seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) not at all important/not
good at all to (7) very important/very good.
Procedure
Directors and teachers from each classroom were contacted to
obtain permission to approach parents for participation in the study.
The participation was voluntary, written informed consent was ob-
tained from each individual prior to data collection, and the parents
anonymity was ensured. Questionnaires were given to every child to
be completed by parents at home and returned to school. In-
structions were given to parents to complete the questionnaire in
private. A total of 2730 questionnaires were distributed in all the
schools, 1110 were returned, and 1100 (655 mothers and 445 fathers)
were correctly completed by parents to be used in this study.
Data analysis for the structural stage analyses
Conrmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs) were used to evaluate the
internal structure of the PPPAICAQ. Three objectives were of in-
terest with the CFA analyses, namely (a) to precisely test the
theoretical structure of the PPPAICAQ, (b) to select the items of the
preliminary version of the PPPAICAQ used to measure each
dimension in the nal version of the PPPAICAQ, and subsequently
(c) to cross-validate the nal version of the PPPAICAQ among
validation samples. We randomly divided the sample in third
creating a calibration sample (N 367) and two validation samples
(Ns 367 and 366). The initial measurement model is based on the
hypothetical two-factor structures of the PPPAICAQ.
The modication indices of the Lisrel output (Jreskog &
Srbom, 2004) identies additional paths in the measurement
model that would reduce the size of the chi-square statistic and
thereby improve the models t to the data. While this strategy
promises to improve the datas t to the model, it would also result

Table 1
Standardized factor loadings, t values and error variances for each manifest variable for the initial CFA of calibration sample.

Manifest variable Items French (English) Standardized t values Error

factor loadings variances

PPICPA 1 Quelle importance attribuez-vous au fait que votre enfant pratique une activit physique et/ou sportive 0.82 17.84 0.32
en dehors de lcole? [How important is to you that your child participates in sport and/or PA out
of school time?].
PPICPA 2 Quelle importance attribuez-vous au fait que votre enfant pratique une activit physique et/ou sportive, 0.50 9.46 0.75
plutt que dautres activits (musique, peinture etc.)? [Compared to other activities (music, paint etc.),
how important is to you that your child participate in sport and/or PA].
PPICPA 3 Quelle importance attribuez-vous au fait que votre enfant pratique une activit physique et/ou sportive 0.30 5.45 0.91
pour avoir ou maintenir un poids dsir? [How important is to you that your child participate in sport
and/or PA for have or maintain a desired weight?]
PPICPA 4 Quelle importance attribuez-vous au fait que votre enfant pratique une activit physique et/ou sportive 0.67 13.62 0.55
pour tre en bonne sant? [How important is to you that your child participates in sport and/or PA for
a better health?]
PPICPA 5 Quelle importance attribuez-vous au fait que votre enfant soit bon(ne) dans ses activits physiques et/ou 0.39 7.28 0.84
sportives? [How important is to you that your child does will in sport and/or PA?]
PPICPA 6 Pensez-vous que faire de lactivit physique et/ou sportive est bnque pour votre enfant? [Do you 0.80 17.09 0.36
think that doing sport and/PA is useful for your child?]
PPICPA 7 Pensez-vous que faire de lactivit physique et/ou sportive fait plaisir votre enfant? [Do you think that 0.62 12.38 0.61
your child enjoys doing sport and/or PA?]
PPICPA 8 Pensez-vous quil existe des consquences ngatives (nancires, psychologiques, sociales) lies la 0.12 2.21 0.98
pratique des activits physiques et/ou sportives pour votre enfant? [Do you think that there are negative
consequences, nancial, psychological, social, associated with your child participation in sport and/or PA?]
PPCAPA 1 Trouvez-vous que votre enfant est laise quand il fait du sport et/ou de lactivit physique? [Do you think 0.70 14.89 0.51
that your child is easy when practising sport and/or PA?]
PPCAPA 2 Selon vous, quel est le niveau de votre enfant en sport et/ou en activit physique en gnral [In general, 0.85 19.73 0.27
how do you estimate your childs level of ability in sport and/or PA?]
PPCAPA 3 Par rapport aux autres enfants de son ge, comment valuez-vous votre enfant en sport et/ou en activit 0.90 21.45 0.19
physique [Compared to other children in his/her age, how good is your child in sport and/or PA?]
PPCAPA 4 Par rapport aux autres enfants de son ge, pensez-vous que votre enfant soit parmi les meilleurs en sport 0.82 18.60 0.33
et/ou en activit physique? [Compared to other children in his/her age, do you think that your child is
one of the best in sport and/or PA?]

Note. PPICPA Parents Perceived Importance of their Childrens PA; PPCAPA Parents Perception of their Childrens Ability in PA.
 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
in some items loading on more than one factor. Rather than adding
paths from a second factor, the four problematic items were deleted
in a systematic and sequential manner (Cox, Martens, & Russell,
2003). Following the suggestion of Cox et al. (2003), the decision
to eliminate a PPPAICAQ item was based on the largest modica-
tions indices and/or the weakest factor loadings on their hypoth-
esized latent factor. The remaining data were then subjected to a
follow-up CFA. This process continued as long as an item associ-
ated with a modication indices of greater than 10 (i.e., decrease in
chi square greater than 10) or a factor loadings of 0.40 or lesser on
their respective latent factor could be found. Because the model
generation strategy used in the re-estimation of calibration model
through item deletion (i.e., an initial model is t to the data and
then modied as necessary until it ts adequately well) could be
susceptible to capitalization on chance, the nal best tting model
of the calibration sample must be evaluated by tting it to an in-
dependent sample (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). We thus subjected
data from the two validation samples to CFA of the best tting
model from the calibration sample. Then, to strengthen the perti-
nence of the 2-factor 8-item model, it was compared to an alter-
native 1-factor model (i.e., PPCPIA and PPCAPA items loaded on a
single factor) for the calibration and the two validation samples.
Because gender differences (of both parents and children) are of
central importance in the process of family socialization in the PA
context (e.g., Eccles et al., 2000; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005), the
factorial invariance of the PPPAICAQ across parents and childrens
gender was evaluated using a multistep approach (Byrne, 2006), in
which chi-square differences were evaluated between the con-
strained models tested using Bonferroni adjustment on the p value
(p < 0.016) to guard against ination of Type I error rates because of
multiple comparisons.
Multiple t indices were chosen to achieve a comprehensive
evaluation of t (MacCallum & Austin, 2000): the chi-square (c2),
the goodness of t index (GFI), the BentlereBonett non-normed t
index (NNFI), the comparative t index (CFI), the standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR), the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA) and the condence interval of RMSEA (90%
CI). For the GFI, CFI and NNFI, values above 0.90 are traditionally
considered reasonable model t, whereas newer recommendations
suggest values close to 0.95 (Bentler, 1995; Hu & Bentler, 1999). For
the RMSEA and the SRMR, values of 0.08 and below are suggested
to indicate reasonable t (Browne & Cudek, 1993; Hu & Bentler,
1999). The Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the expected
cross-validation index (ECVI) were used for comparison with
alternative models, providing indication of which model yields the
better t to the data (MacCallum & Austin, 2000).
Results
Initial CFA of the calibration sample6
The hypothesized 2-factor model of the PPPAICAQ was tested
using maximum likelihood estimation on the covariance matrices
6
Factorial structure of the calibration sample was also examined through an
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) because this type of analysis could help
researcher determine the number of factor. A Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
with varimax rotation was conducted upon the PPPAICAQ inter-item correlation
matrices of the calibration sample. Three eigenvalues >1.0 were obtained following
the PCA (l1 4.05, l2 2.28, l3 1.33). Examination of the eigenvalue scree plot (i.
e., scree test) suggested the retention of two factors. Thus, CFA results, EFA results
and inspection of relevant previous literature (i.e., substantive stage of construct
validation) suggested the tenability of a 2-factor solution. Because PCA solution
corresponded directly with the 2-factor model results of the initial CFA for the
calibration sample (see Table 1), we choose not to present PCA results. For inter-
ested reader, PCA results are available on request to the rst author.
723
with Lisrel 8.71 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2004). The standardized factor
loadings, t values and error variances of the initial CFA for the
calibration sample are shown in Table 1. All path coefcients
leading from latent variables (PPICPA and PPCPIA) to manifest
variables (PPPAICAQ items) were signicant (t > 1.96). Although all
the paths were signicant, the path coefcients leading from
PPICPA as a latent variable to items PPICPA 3 (0.30), PPICPA 5 (0.39)
and PPICPA 8 (0.12) were below the cut-off criteria of 0.40. In-
spection of the goodness of t indices suggests a less than ideal t
of the data to the hypothesized model (see Table 2).
Follow-up CFAs of the calibration sample
Using the procedures outlined in the data analysis section, we
re-estimated the calibration model through systematic and
sequential item deletion. Following each item deletion, a follow-up
CFA was calculated on the revised measurement model. This pro-
cess resulted in the deletion of 4 items (PPICPA items 3, 5, 7 and 8;
see Table 1). The goodness-of-t indicators for the nal 8-item
model reached cut-off criterion values (Table 2). The chi-square
difference tests (Dc2 270.63, Ddf 37, p < 0.001) and the AIC
and ECVI values provided evidence for the relative superiority of
the nal 8-item model. Estimated correlation among latent con-
structs disattenuated for measurement error was 0.28 (t > 1.96).
CFAs of the validation samples
The standardized factor loadings and error variances of the CFAs
for the two validation samples are shown in Fig. 1. All path co-
efcients leading from latent variables to manifest variables
(PPPAICAQ items) were signicant (t > 1.96). All path coefcients
were greater than 0.40. Estimated correlations among the two
latent constructs disattenuated for measurement error were 0.23
and 0.33 (t > 1.96) suggesting that the PPICPA and PPCAPA di-
mensions of the PPPAICAQ are tapping unique, yet correlated, di-
mensions of parental perceptions about their childrens PA. Finally,
goodness-of-t indices of the two validation samples suggested a
good t to the data (Table 2).
CFAs of alternative 1-factor 8-item model
To strengthen the pertinence of the 2-factor 8-item model, it
was compared to an alternative 1-factor 8-item model, in which the
items from PPICPA and PPCAPA loaded on a single factor. The chi-
square difference tests (calibration sample: Dc2 429.19, Ddf 1,
p < 0.001; validation sample 1: Dc2 211.80, Ddf 1, p < 0.001;
validation sample 2: Dc2 239.24, Ddf 1, p < 0.001) and the
goodness-of-t indices provided evidence for the relative superi-
ority of the 2-factor 8-item model (see Table 2).
Factorial invariance across gender of parents and children
The factorial invariances across gender of parents and children
were evaluated using a multistep procedure as recommended by
Byrne (2006). The nal 2-factor 8-item model demonstrated an
adequate model t among the separate samples of mothers and
fathers as well as boys and girls (Table 2). The unconstrained
multiple-sample CFA models tted the data adequately with all
goodness-of-t indices reaching good values for both parents and
childrens gender (Table 2). Hence, the number of latent constructs
can be assumed to be identical across the gender of parents and
children (congural invariances). As displayed in Table 2, model ts
were still adequate when invariance constraints were placed
stepwise on factor loadings, covariance of latent constructs and
error variances for both parents and childrens gender. Across the
724 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727

Table 2
Fit indices of the PPPAICAQ models for the calibration and validation samples and test of invariance across gender of parents (Nmales 455, Nfemales 655) and children
(Nboys 529, Ngirls 571) of the 2-factor 8-item model of the PPPAICAQ.

c2 p df GFI CFI NNFI SRMR RMSEA 90% CI AIC ECVI Dc2 Ddf
Calibration sample
2-factor 12-item model 299.38 <0.001 53 0.88 0.91 0.88 0.08 0.11 0.10e0.13 349.38 0.96
2-factor 8-item model 28.75 0.026 16 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.05 0.02e0.07 68.75 0.19 270.63* 37
1-factor 8-item model 457.94 <0.001 17 0.76 0.75 0.59 0.20 0.27 0.25e0.29 495.94 1.36 429.19* 1
Validation sample 1
2-factor 8-item model 29.70 0.020 16 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.04 0.05 0.02e0.07 69.70 0.19
1-factor 8-item model 241.50 <0.001 17 0.86 0.82 0.71 0.15 0.19 0.17e0.21 279.50 0.77 211.80* 1
Validation sample 2
2-factor 8-item model 15.28 0.504 16 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.00 0.00e0.05 55.28 0.15
1-factor 8-item model 254.52 <0.001 17 0.85 0.87 0.79 0.14 0.20 0.18e0.22 292.52 0.80 239.24* 1
Mother sample 32.52 0.008 16 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.02 0.04 0.02e0.06 72.52 0.11
Father sample 24.69 0.075 16 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.03 0.00e0.06 64.69 0.14
Multiple groups model
Baseline (unconstrained) 57.22 0.004 32 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.04 0.02e0.05 137.22 0.12
Constraints on factor loadings 80.62 <0.001 40 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.04 0.03e0.06 144.62 0.13 23.40* 8
Constraints on factor loadingsa 71.03 0.001 39 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.04 0.04 0.02e0.05 137.03 0.12 13.81 7
Constraints on covariancea 80.61 < 0.001 41 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.04 0.03e0.06 142.61 0.13 0.01 1
Constraints on error variancesa 89.25 < 0.001 49 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.04 0.03e0.05 135.25 0.12 8.64 8
Girl sample 31.14 0.01 16 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.04 0.02e0.06 71.14 0.12
Boy sample 23.73 0.10 16 0.99 1.00 0.99 0.03 0.03 0.00e0.05 63.73 0.12
Multiple groups model
Baseline (unconstrained) 54.87 0.007 32 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.04 0.02e0.05 134.87 0.12
Constraints on factor loadings 60.76 0.02 40 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.03 0.03 0.01e0.05 124.76 0.11 5.89 8
Constraints on covariance 62.68 0.02 41 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.04 0.03 0.01e0.05 124.68 0.11 1.92 1
Constraints on error variances 94.33 <0.001 49 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.04 0.03e0.05 140.33 0.13 31.65* 8
Constraints on error variancesb 76.03 0.005 47 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.05 0.03 0.02e0.05 126.03 0.12 13.35 6

*p < 0.016 (Bonferroni correction).

a
Factor loading leading from PPCAPA to PPCAPA item 4 was not constrained to equality across mother and father samples.
b
Error variances of PPICPA item 6 and PPCAPA item 4 were not constrained to equality across boy and girl samples.

samples of mothers and fathers, comparison of the unconstrained suggested that the loading from PPCAPA to PPCAPA item 4 differed
model with the factor loadings constrained model yielded a sig- across samples. Consequently, this equality constraint was freed
nicant Dc2 (p < 0.016, Bonferroni adjustment) leading to the and the test of invariance resulted in a non-signicant Dc2 (Table 2).
rejection of the hypothesis of equality of factor loadings between All remaining 7 factors loadings can be assumed invariant across
mother and father participants (Table 2). The modication indices the samples of mothers and fathers. The chi-square difference test
also showed that the 2-factor 8-item model was invariant across
mother and father participants when covariance between latent
0.94
0.11 constructs and error variances were constrained stepwise (Table 2).
PPICPA 1 0.81
0.35 Across the samples of boys and girls, the chi-square difference
0.50 tests showed that the 2-factor 8-item model was invariant when
0.75 0.58 factor loadings and covariance between latent constructs were
PPICPA 2
0.66 constrained stepwise (Table 2). However, comparison of the
0.56
PPICPA covariance constrained model with the error variance constrained
0.60
0.69
PPICPA 4 model yielded a signicant Dc2 (see Table 2) leading to the rejection
0.64 0.55 of the hypothesis of equality of error variances between boy and girl
0.60 participants. The modication indices suggested that the error
0.70 variances of PPICPA item 6 and PPCAPA item 4 differed signicantly
PPICPA 6
0.64 0.23 across samples. Consequently, these equality constraints were freed
0.71 0.33 and the test of invariance resulted in a non-signicant Dc2. All
0.50
PPCAPA 1 0.83 remaining 6 error variances can be assumed invariant across the
0.32
0.90 samples of boys and girls.
0.18 0.93
PPCAPA 2
0.13
0.65 Reliability
0.79 PPCAPA
0.58
PPCAPA 3
0.38 0.68 The Cronbachs alpha coefcients of the PPPAICAQ subscales
0.78 indicated that the reliability of each subscales was adequate, with
0.54 Cronbachs alpha coefcients of 0.88, 0.84, and 0.90 for PPICPA and
PPCAPA 4
0.40 0.78, 0.74, and 0.73 for PPCAPA respectively for the calibration and
the two validation samples. To further assess the internal reliability
Fig. 1. Measurement model of the hypothesized 2-factor 8-item model of the PPPAI- of the PPPAICAQ, item analysis was conducted (DeVellis, 2003). To
CAQ for the validation samples 1 and 2. Circles represent latent constructs and squares test each item, the following criteria were adopted: (a) a minimum
represent manifest variables (i.e., PPPAICAQ items). All parameters are standardized
and signicant at p < 0.05. Residual variances are shown in small circles.
item-total correlation coefcient of r 0.40 and (b) an inter-item
PPICPA Parents Perceived Importance of their Childrens PA; PPCAPA Parents correlation between r 0.20 and r 0.70 (DeVellis, 2003). All
Perception of their Childrens Ability in PA. the eight items fullled the rst criteria both for the calibration and
 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
the two validation samples. For the second criteria, six inter-item
correlations (out of a potential 36) did not fall within the 0.20 to
0.70 range; however, they did fall between 0.20 and 0.77. In view of
the small amount of violations, item analysis also suggested that
the reliability of the PPPAICAQ subscales was adequate.
Stage 2: the external stage of the PPPAICAQ
Method
Participants and procedure
711 parents (407 mothers and 304 fathers) of children aged
between 6 and 11 years old (M 8.06, SD 1.35) of the original
sample had also completed the Situation Motivation Scale (Guay
et al., 2000) and a questionnaire measuring parental support for
childrens PA (Trost et al., 2003). A list of activities was presented
for parents to identify the activities in which they participated as
well as the duration of their participation in the last month (Bois
et al., 2005). All the 711 parents reported that they do a regular PA.
Measures
Parents motivation
The SIMS (Guay et al., 2000) was used to measure parents
motivation in their own practice of PA. This French questionnaire
consists of 16 items, which measure four types of situational
motivation: intrinsic motivation (e.g., Because I think that this
activity is interesting), identied regulation (e.g.,Because I am
doing it for my own good), external regulation (e.g., Because I am
supposed to do it), and amotivation (e.g., I do this activity but I am
not sure if it is worth it). SDT has provided the theoretical basis
underlying the development of the SIMS. The SIMS overcomes two
important limitations of traditional measures of situational moti-
vation. Contrary to traditional measures such as the free-choice
period, the SIMS assesses not only intrinsic motivation but also
different types of extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. This is
important as motivational research currently goes beyond the mere
study of intrinsic motivation. The SIMS also claries the assessment
of motivation by equating the operational and psychological de-
nition of motivation. Typically, past measures have used motiva-
tional consequences and determinants as indices of motivation. The
SIMS focuses on the very nature of motivation that is the Why of
behavior (Guay et al., 2000). Previous work in PA context has
supported the reliability and the factorial structure of the SIMS (e.g.,
Guay et al., 2000; Standage & Treasure, 2002). In addition, research
that has employed the SIMS has supported the presence of the self-
determination continuum by displaying a simplex-ordered corre-
lation pattern among the four subscales (e.g., Guay et al., 2000;
Standage & Treasure, 2002). Parents reported on a seven point
Likert scale the motives why they are currently engaged in their
own PA ranging from (1) corresponds not all to (7) corresponds
exactly. Cronbachs a were respectively 0.86, 0.80, 0.74, and 0.81.
Parental support for childrens PA
A French translation of a questionnaire used by Trost et al.
(2003) was used to measure parental support for PA (e.g., In a
typical week, how often you participate in physical activity and/or
sport with your child). This scale consisted of ve items assessing
the weekly frequency with which parents encouraged their child to
do PA (Trost et al., 2003). Previous work in PA context has sup-
ported the internal consistency and the testeretest reliability of
this parental support scale (Trost et al., 2003). The ve items were
translated into French and sent to two bilingual translators
(FrencheEnglish) who translated it back into English. Then, differ-
ences were discussed and solved so that the original meaning of
725
each English original item was considered to be present in the nal
French version. Each item was rated on an 8-point Likert scale
ranging from 0 (not at all) to 7 (7 times per week). Results of a CFA
using maximum likelihood estimation provided acceptable t
indices of the original measurement model (c2(5) 169.85,
p < 0.001, GFI 0.94, CFI 0.92, SRMR 0.064). In the present
study, Cronbachs a of this scale was 0.79.
Results
Parents motivation
PPICPA correlated 0.27 (p < 0.001) with intrinsic motivation and
0.32 (p < 0.001) with identied regulation. PPCAPA correlated 0.12
(p < 0.001) with intrinsic motivation and 0.10 (p < 0.01) with
identied regulation. Non-signicant correlations were observed
between PPPAICAQ subscales and the non-self-determined forms
of motivation of external regulation (rs 0.00 and 0.01) and
amotivation (rs 0.05).
Parental support for childrens PA
PPICPA and PPCAPA were positively correlated with parental
support for their childrens PA (rs 0.22 and 0.21 respectively,
p < 0.001).
Discussion
The PPPAICAQ was developed (a) to overcome the lack of pub-
lished and psychometrically validated questionnaires designed to
assess parents perceptions about their childrens PA, and (b) as an
instrument grounded in the most prominent parental socialization
theory: the parental socialization framework of Eccles (Eccles,
2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, 2005). The results of its psycho-
metric evaluation indicated that it is a promising questionnaire
with some construct validity evidence. First, CFAs revealed good ts
between participants item responses and the 2-factor 8-item
model among the three samples of parents examined (one cali-
bration and two validation samples). Four PPICPA items, identied
as problematic (factor loadings <0.40 and/or items loading on both
the PPICPA and PPCAPA latent factors) were deleted from the pre-
liminary version of the PPPAICAQ. Deletion of these items resulted
in an improved model t of the PPPAICAQ on the calibration sam-
ple, the two validation samples of parents providing some evidence
for the replicability of the 2-factor 8-item model of the PPPAICAQ.
Second, comparisons of the 2-factor 8-item model with an
alternative 1-factor 8-item model, in which the items from PPICPA
and PPCAPA loaded on a single factor, provided evidence for the
superiority of the hypothesized 2-factor structure of the PPPAICAQ
among the three samples of parents investigated. Internal consis-
tency coefcients as well as item analysis also showed that the two
dimensions of the PPPAICAQ demonstrated acceptable reliability.
Thus, conrming our prediction, results indicated clearly that the
PPPAICAQ yielded a factor structure comprising two latent di-
mensions consistent with the Eccles parental socialization frame-
work (Eccles, 2005; Fredricks & Eccles, 2004, 2005): PPICPA and
PPCAPA. In addition, the inter-scale correlations suggested that
they are tapping unique, yet correlated dimensions of parents
perceptions of their childrens PA.
A series of multiple-sample CFAs tested the invariance of
parameter estimates across the mother and father samples as well
as the girl and boy samples. Overall, our results indicated that the
2-factor 8-item model was partially invariant, with only a few
differences in specic parameter estimates across the gender of
parents and children (see Table 2). A result of particular importance
726 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
was that (a) 7 out of the 8 factor loadings constrained to equality
were not signicantly different across the mother and father
samples, and (b) all the 8 factor loadings constrained to equality
were not signicantly different across the boy and girl samples. This
nding supports the use of the PPPAICAQ to compare the mothers
and fathers perceptions about PA of their sons and/or daughters.
A third validity indicator is that the PPPAICAQ subscales related
to external variables in accord with the previous ndings and
theoretical expectations (e.g., Bois & Sarrazin, 2006; Fredricks &
Eccles, 2002, 2005; Heitzler et al., 2006; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998;
Trost et al., 2003). Previous research showed that parents per-
ceptions in relation to their childrens PA are related to enjoyment
(an intrinsic form of motivation) (Trost et al., 2003). Present results
showed that the two most self-determined types of motivation
(intrinsic motivation and identied regulation) were positively
correlated with PPICPA and PPCAPA subscales. In contrast and as
expected, the two less self-determined types of motivation (i.e.,
external regulation and amotivation) showed no signicant corre-
lation with the PPICPA and PPCAPA subscales. Additionally, con-
rming previous studies, PPICPA and PPCAPA subscales were
positively correlated with reported parental support for their
childrens PA (Bois & Sarrazin, 2006; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost
et al., 2003).
Only a weak discrimination of the two PPPAICAQ subscales
emerged from their pattern of relationships with external variables
(parents motivation in their own PA and parental support).
Nevertheless, these results did not seem to be an indication of a
poor criterion-related validity of the PPPAICAQ. This statement is
based on the rationale that (a) correlations observed between
PPPAICAQ subscales, parents motivation and parental support
were consistent with those observed in previous studies and
concordant with theoretical expectations (Bois & Sarrazin, 2006;
Bois et al., 2005; Kimiecik & Horn, 1998; Trost et al., 2003), (b) re-
sults of the CFAs clearly discard the 1-factor 8-item model of the
PPPAICAQ in favor to the 2-factor 8-item model of the PPPAICAQ,
and (c) correlations between latent constructs (i.e., PPICPA and
PPCAPA) indicated a shared variance proportion of 11% or less
across the three samples examined in this study (Fs 0.28, 0.23,
and 0.33).
Our decision to randomly split the initial sample in three sam-
ples is a limitation. This methodology does not really result in truly
independent samples but rather in samples that share the prop-
erties of the initial large sample. A sample is considered indepen-
dent when data are collected not only from different people but
also in different settings and time. Nevertheless, if the timing of the
data gathering was similar between the three samples used in this
study, the settings varied largely between the samples since par-
ents originated from different schools and/or classrooms. Because
theory testing and validity of self-report are inextricably linked,
further validity evidence collected in truly independently samples
(e.g., parents of children aged between 12 and 17 years old) is
highly warranted. Future research should also validate the measure
with how closely the parental perceptions of PPICPA and PPCAPA
match up with the childs perceptions.
In conclusion, results of this study add to previous PA research
by showing that the PPPAICAQ is a reliable and valid tool to esti-
mate parents perceptions about their childrens PA. Results of the
CFAs: (a) supported the 2-factor 8-item model and provided evi-
dence for the factorial validity of the PPPAICAQ, and (b) showed
evidence for the superiority of the 2-factor 8-item model compared
to an alternative 1-factor 8-item model. Results of the multiple-
group CFAs showed that the 2-factor 8-item model was partially
invariant across the mother and father samples as well as the
boy and girl samples. Inter-scale correlations of the PPPAICAQ
subscales and correlations of the PPPAICAQ subscales with parents
motivation and parental support for their children PA provided
evidence for the criterion-related validity of the PPPAICAQ. It is
hoped that it will prove to be a useful instrument (1) to examine
theoretical questions regarding the topic of parental inuence on
their childrens PA, and (2) to compare research ndings across
studies.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.05.008.
References
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multi-
variate Software, Inc.
Bois, J. E., & Sarrazin, P. G. (2006). Do dogs make cats? A review of the parental role
in the socialization process of their childrens physical activity. Sciences et
Motricit, 57, 9e54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/sm.057.09.
Bois, J. E., Sarrazin, P. G., Brustad, R. J., Trouilloud, D. O., & Cury, F. (2002). Mothers
expectancies and young adolescents perceived physical competence: a year-
long study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 384e406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
027243102237189.
Bois, J. E., Sarrazin, P. G., Brustad, R. J., Trouilloud, D. O., & Cury, F. (2005). Elementary
schoolchildrens perceived competence and physical activity involvement: the
inuence of parents role modelling behaviours and perceptions of their childs
competence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 381e397. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.03.003.
Browne, M. W., & Cudek, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model t. In
K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136e162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Brustad, R. J. (1992). Integrating socialization inuences into the study of childrens
motivation in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 59e77.
Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth in sport: psychological
considerations. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 604e635) New York: Wiley.
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS. Basic concepts, appli-
cations, and programming (2nd ed.). London: Lawrence Eribaum Associates,
Publishers.
Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: the
revised competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy-
chology, 23, 519e533.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuit: human needs
and the self-determination theory. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227e268. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). London,
UK: Sage Publications.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and Eccles et al. Model of achievement-
related choices. In A. J. Elliott, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence
and motivation (pp. 105e121). New York: Guilford Press.
Eccles, J. S., Freedman-Doan, C., Frome, P. M., Jacobs, J. E., & Yoon, K. S. (2000).
Gender role socialization in the family: a longitudinal approach. In T. Eckes, &
H. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 333e360).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement:
applying the Eccles expectancy model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3,
7e35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413209108406432.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. (2002). Childrens competence and value beliefs from
childhood through adolescence: growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed
domains. Developmental Psychology, 38, 519e533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.38.4.519.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. (2004). Parental inuences on youth involvement in sports. In
M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan
perspective (pp. 145e164). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. (2005). Family socialization, gender, and sport motivation
and involvement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27, 3e31.
Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale SIMS. Moti-
vation and Emotion, 24, 175e213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250.
Heitzler, C. D., Martin, S. L., Duke, J., & Huhman, M. (2006). Correlates of physical
activity in a national sample of children aged 9e13 years. Preventive Medicine,
42, 254e260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2006.01.010.
Horn, T. S., & Horn, J. L. (2007). Family inuence on childrens sport and physical
activity participation, behavior, and psychosocial responses. In G. Tenenbaum, &
R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 685e711)
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1e55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
 G. Martinent et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 719e727
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers gender role stereotypic
beliefs on mothers and childrens ability perceptions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 932e944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932.
Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents task value and real life achievement
choices. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and achievement (pp.
405e439). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (2004). LISREL 8.71 for Windows (computer software).
Lincolnwood, IL: Scientic Software International, Inc.
Kimiecik, J. C., & Horn, T. S. (1998). Parental beliefs and childrens moderate-to-
vigorous physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 69, 163e175.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201e226. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201.
Martinsen, E. W., & Stephens, T. (1994). Exercise and mental health in clinical and
free living populations. In R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Advances in exercise adherence
(pp. 52e72). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
727
Naisseh, M., Martinent, G., Ferrand, C., & Hautier, C. Parental socialization in physical
activity: Linking self-determination theory and expectation value model of
Eccles, (submitted for publication).
Schutz, P. A., Distefano, C., Benson, J., & Davis, H. A. (2004). The emotional regulation
during test-taking scale. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17, 253e269. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10615800410001710861.
Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal ori-
entations and multidimensional situational motivation in physical education.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87e103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/
000709902158784.
Trost, S. G., Sallis, J. F., Pate, R. R., Freedson, P. S., Taylor, W. C., & Dowda, M. (2003).
Evaluating a model of parental inuence on youth physical activity. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 25, 277e282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-
3797(03)00217-4.
Zecevic, C. A., Tremblay, L., Lovsin, T., & Michel, L. (2010). Parental inuence on young
childrens physical activity. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2010, 468e526.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/468526.