Beware the semantics when modeling Kai R. Larsen University of Colorado NSF International Workshop on Dynamic Modeling of Health Behavior Change and Maintenance, Sept 8-9, 2015, London, UK Note: the presenter knows almost nothing about Skyler, diet, and exercise and will therefore not muddle the water with related factors.

CBSEM Analysis of TAM theory (Language info only…no respondents)

Social Cognitive Theory (Stevens, 2006, p. 35)

Survey correlations are predictable… These work: Leadership: Idealized influence attributes Idealized influence behavior Inspiring motivation Intellectual stimulation Individualized consideration Conditional reward Management by exception active Management by exception passive Laissez-Faire Outcomes Related: Economic-exchange perceptions Social-exchange perceptions Intrinsic motivation Organizational citizenship behavior Turnover intention Self-rated work quality Self-rated work effort Leader-member social exchange Initiation of structure Consideration Affective organizational commitment Job satisfaction Technology adoption: Ease of use Usefulness Intention to use Patient reported outcomes: Global health Emotional distress – anger Emotional distress – anxiety Emotional distress – depression Fatigue – fatigue experience Fatigue – fatigue impact Pain – behavior Pain – interference Pain – quality Physical function

Important for Modeling Behaviors… Bad news: The better the fit statistics, the more likely a theory is semantic Cronbach’s alpaha > .9 Be suspicious Semantics may account for the easy part of modeling behavioral theories Good news: Behavior-based responses are not semantically based More behavior-derived measures are available than ever before

What is left in Social Cognitive Theory for Skyler? Physical Environment Access to sweets and snacks Social Environment Social support Behavioral capability Knowledge Skills