IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i16p6561-d1215459.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of a Novel Theory-Based Pragmatic Tool to Evaluate the Quality of Instructor-Led Exercise Videos to Promote Youth Physical Activity at Home: Preliminary Findings

Author

Listed:
  • Lexie R. Beemer

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Wendy Tackett

    (iEVAL, Battle Creek, MI 49015, USA)

  • Anna Schwartz

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Melia Schliebe

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Alison Miller

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Andria B. Eisman

    (College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA)

  • Leah E. Robinson

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Thomas Templin

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Susan H. Brown

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

  • Rebecca E. Hasson

    (School of Kinesiology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA)

Abstract

Background: Exercise videos that work to minimize cognitive load (the amount of information that working memory can hold at one time) are hypothesized to be more engaging, leading to increased PA participation. Purpose: To use a theory-based pragmatic tool to evaluate the cognitive load of instructor-led exercise videos associated with the Interrupting Prolonged Sitting with ACTivity (InPACT) program. Methods: Exercise videos were created by physical education teachers and fitness professionals. An evaluation rubric was created to identify elements each video must contain to reduce cognitive load, which included three domains with four components each [technical (visual quality, audio quality, matching modality, signaling), content (instructional objective, met objective, call-to-action, bias), and instructional (learner engagement, content organization, segmenting, weeding)]. Each category was scored on a 3-point scale from 0 (absent) to 2 (proficient). A video scoring 20–24 points induced low cognitive load, 13–19 points induced moderate cognitive load, and less than 13 points induced high cognitive load. Three reviewers independently evaluated the videos and then agreed on scores and feedback. Results: All 132 videos were evaluated. Mean video total score was 20.1 ± 0.7 points out of 24. Eighty-five percent of videos were rated low cognitive load, 15% were rated moderate cognitive load, and 0% were rated high cognitive load. The following components scored the highest: audio quality and matching modality. The following components scored the lowest: signaling and call-to-action. Conclusions: Understanding the use of a pragmatic tool is a first step in the evaluation of InPACT at Home exercise videos. Our preliminary findings suggest that the InPACT at Home videos had low cognitive load. If future research confirms our findings, using a more rigorous study design, then developing a collection of instructor-led exercise videos that induce low cognitive load may help to enhance youth physical activity participation in the home environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Lexie R. Beemer & Wendy Tackett & Anna Schwartz & Melia Schliebe & Alison Miller & Andria B. Eisman & Leah E. Robinson & Thomas Templin & Susan H. Brown & Rebecca E. Hasson, 2023. "Use of a Novel Theory-Based Pragmatic Tool to Evaluate the Quality of Instructor-Led Exercise Videos to Promote Youth Physical Activity at Home: Preliminary Findings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(16), pages 1-12, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:16:p:6561-:d:1215459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/16/6561/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/16/6561/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:16:p:6561-:d:1215459. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.