Scientific Papers

Could parental awareness of DBR influence youth off-campus sports? Test of a conditional process model | BMC Public Health

Research objects

We adopted the method of stratified random cluster sampling to comprehensively consider the three major economic belts in the east, middle, and west of China. And we selected three cities in each economic zone according to high, medium, and low GDP (in the east: Nantong, Jiangsu Province, Lishui, Zhejiang Province, and Fuxin, Liaoning Province; in the middle: Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, Puyang, Henan Province, and Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Hunan Province; in the west: Chongqing, Yibin, Sichuan Province, and Yili, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region). From March to April 2022, 100 paper questionnaires were distributed on site in each grade of 9 junior middle schools, 2,700 of which were distributed and 2,679 were recovered, including 2,420 valid questionnaires (recovery rate = 89.6%). The valid data included 1,190 male students and 1,230 female students with a basically balanced gender ratio. There were 826 students in Grade 7, 913 students in Grade 8 and 681 students in Grade 9 (grade distribution: χ2 = 3.74, P = 0.15).

Measuring tools

Parental awareness of the intensity of DBR

We administered the Chinese version of the Event Intensity Awareness Scale revised in combination with DBR [17]. There are 11 items in total, including 4 reverse scoring items, using the Likert 7-point scoring method, in which 1 represents “completely disagree” and 7 represents “completely agree.” And higher scores indicate higher parental awareness of DBR. The 11 items include three dimensions of novelty, criticality, and disruption awareness of DBR. The dimensions show high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.870, 0.846, and 0.858, respectively). Confirmatory factor analyses (X2 / df = 4.924 < 5, RMSEA = 0.041 < 0.08, NFI = 0.982 > 0.9, IFI = 0.985 > 0.9, TLI = 0.980 > 0.9, CFI = 0.985 > 0.9) further confirm high structural validity.

Parental education anxiety

We used the Parents’ Education Anxiety Questionnaire [12] containing 21 items in total on a Likert 5-point scale, in which 1 represents “completely disagree” and 5 represents “completely agree.” Higher scores indicate higher parental anxiety about their children’s education. Three items of the questionnaire reflect children’s learning attitudes anxiety, three items reflect school choice anxiety, four items reflect future development anxiety, four items reflect academic achievement anxiety, and four items reflect parent–child learning interaction anxiety. The five dimensions show high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.785, 0.782, 0.809, 0.811 and 0.849, respectively). Confirmatory factor analyses (X2 / df = 4.410 < 5, RMSEA = 0.038 < 0.08, NFI = 0.974 > 0.9, IFI = 0.980 > 0.9, TLI = 0.975 > 0.9, CFI = 0.980 > 0.9) indicate good structural validity.

Parental attitudes toward their children’s participation in sports

We used the Parental Sports Attitude questionnaire [18] which contains 9 total items on a Likert 5-point scale, in which 1 represents “completely disagree” and 5 represents “completely agree.” Higher scores indicate more positive parental attitudes toward their children’s physical exercise. The questionnaire shows high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.921) and good structural validity (X2 / df = 4.097 < 5, RMSEA = 0.036 < 0.08, NFI = 0.992 > 0.9, IFI = 0.994 > 0.9, TLI = 0.992 > 0.9, CFI = 0.994 > 0.9).

Youth off-campus sports

We finally used the Physical Activity Rating Scale [19] revised with emphasis on “off-campus”. The scale includes 3 total items combining the frequency of weekly off-campus sports, the duration of each off-campus sport, and the intensity of ordinary off-campus sports. The total score was the product of the three. And the answers to each item are divided into 5 levels, with frequency and intensity scored on a scale of 1–5, duration scored on a scale of 0–4, and total scored on a scale of 0–100, with higher scores indicating higher levels of off-campus sports among young people. Reliability and validity analyses showed high scores for both (retest reliability r = 0.82, internal consistency reliability: Cronbach’s α = 0.907).

Data analysis

SPSS25.0 was used for descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of variables, and linear regression analysis was used for the main effect test. Process 4.0 plug-in is used to analyze the mediation effect and regulatory effect. Model 4 was used to test the mediating effect of parents’ educational anxiety, and model 59 was used to test the moderating effect of parents’ attitudes. The bootstrap method based on 2,000 resamples was used to examine the significance of the direct and indirect effects.

Source link