The impact of physical activity variety on physical activity participation

Tyler M Dregney; Chelsey Thul; Jennifer A Linde; Beth A Lewis

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323195

. 2025 May 27;20(5):e0323195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195

The impact of physical activity variety on physical activity participation

Tyler M Dregney ^1,^*, Chelsey Thul ², Jennifer A Linde ³, Beth A Lewis ²

Editor: Henri Tilga⁴

PMCID: PMC12112371 PMID: 40424375

Abstract

Background and aims

Variety (i.e., multiple types of activities) may be effective for increasing physical activity (PA) based on previous research; however, research is needed to evaluate variety’s impact on psychosocial variables.

Methods

This exploratory study examined the effect of a home-based PA variety intervention on PA participation and psychosocial variables (motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, enjoyment, boredom, variety perception, PA feeling, self-efficacy, and affect) in an eight-week randomized intervention trial. Participants (n = 47; mean age, 19.9 + /- 1.9; 75% female) were low-active, 18–25-year-old college students randomized to participate in the PA variety intervention or the consistency comparison condition. All participants received weekly individual counseling. The PA variety intervention received 14 unique high intensity interval training (HIIT) workouts with instructions to complete at least three different workouts per week, and the consistency comparison received one HIIT workout to complete at least three times per week. Priori comparisons and between groups analysis of covariance were used to examine findings.

Results

Participants in the variety condition reported marginally significant more weekly moderate-to-vigorous PA (p = .072) over the course of the intervention and higher psychological needs satisfaction (p = .099) at four weeks relative to the comparison. The variety intervention condition reported significantly higher perceived autonomy (p = .013) within psychological needs at four weeks, PA feelings of tranquility (p = .005) at eight weeks, and PA self-efficacy (p = .025) at eight weeks relative to the comparison.

Conclusions

This exploratory study revealed there was preliminary evidence that variety may lead to improved psychological responses to PA among college-age individuals, although findings should be interpreted with caution given the use of marginal significance. Future studies should examine how a variety of different activities (e.g., cycling, tennis, group fitness classes) influence motivation and PA, in addition to including larger and more diverse samples. Practitioners should support clients’ psychological needs and provide home-based PA options.

Introduction

Sufficient physical activity (PA) leads to numerous health benefits including the prevention of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension, obesity, and osteoporosis [1–4]. Long-term PA participation is related to mental health benefits including improved cognitive function, reduced anxiety and depression risk, and improved quality of life [1,5]. However, PA decreases as individuals transition into early adulthood [6,7]. Despite potential benefits associated with PA, 66% of college-aged individuals in the U.S. do not meet PA guidelines [8].

Self-determination theory (SDT) provides a framework for how to understand PA behavior and increase PA participation [9,10]. SDT proposes that individuals must experience the basic psychological needs of perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness to be intrinsically (internally) motivated, which promotes more effective pursuit of goal-directed behavior [10,11]. Researchers examining PA among young adults and college students often utilize SDT to guide interventions [12–15]. Findings suggest that SDT is appropriate for college students [12,13]. However, when interventions are not designed to address an individual’s basic psychological needs, little impact is observed [14,15]. Initial research on variety in PA (i.e., multiple types of activities) indicates that variety may play a role in satisfying psychological needs and compensating for unsatisfied basic psychological needs, which can lead to increased intrinsic motivation for PA [16,17].

Preliminary research on variety indicates that increasing variety in PA leads to improvement in self-reported PA participation, motivation, and enjoyment [16–26]. Further, increasing one’s variety in PA may decrease levels of boredom, as boredom in PA settings has been observed to lead to less PA [27]. Glaros and Janelle [20] examined the impact of a variety condition for adults in an eight-week intervention that had participants switch activities every two weeks. Findings indicated that the variety condition engaged in significantly more PA than participants who could choose any activity throughout the intervention. Additionally, the variety condition experienced significantly more enjoyment relative to the preferred and static (i.e., same activity for entire intervention) conditions. However, gaps and limitations remain for research that examines variety in PA.

Previous studies that examine the impact of variety in PA largely focus on children populations (18, 24–26). Previous studies have not examined variety’s impact on PA feeling, self-efficacy, or affective valence. Research that has examined variety in PA observed increased PA participation, motivation, and enjoyment as a result of variety in PA [16,20,21]; however, these studies did not include home-based interventions, objective measures of PA, or the exclusive use of cardiovascular fitness classes. One gap that persisted through previous research is the barriers to PA faced by college students. College students often mention not having enough time or energy and not having access to an activity facility as reasons for not being physically active [28]. Home-based PA is an effective method for college students to engage in enjoyable and sufficient PA [29]. A further limitation of previous research is the use of self-reported PA. PA measured via self-report can lead to bias in reporting and difficulty remembering PA participation, which skews findings [30]. This issue can be avoided through objective measurement of PA [31]. Finally, variety in PA has typically been examined in individual activities such as fitness training, stationary biking, or running [16,20]. However, cardiovascular fitness classes can also lead to improvements in fitness, perceived fitness, autonomy, and purpose in life for college students [32].

The present study addressed the following research gaps through: implementing an accessible, home-based variety PA intervention; applying objective measures to PA; utilizing cardiovascular fitness classes; and examining a wide breadth of psychosocial factors. Therefore, the primary purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a home-based PA variety intervention for low-active college students that aimed to increase PA participation and show positive effects on psychosocial variables in an eight-week randomized intervention trial.

As outlined by Bowen and colleagues [33], feasibility studies should examine acceptability and implementation and conduct limited efficacy testing. For this study, acceptability was achieved if participants completed a mean number of 75% of the motivational phone sessions and rated the intervention a mean number of six on a seven-point Likert scale. Implementation was achieved if at least 40 participants were recruited and at least 80% of the sample was retained at eight weeks. We determined that 40 participants would be adequate to determine if we could sustain a recruitment rate of 6–7 participants per month, which could inform a future trial seeking to recruit 200 participants over 2.5 years.

Regarding preliminary efficacy, it was hypothesized that participants randomized to the variety intervention would exhibit more PA participation at four and eight weeks relative to a comparison condition (described below). It was also hypothesized that participants randomized to the variety intervention would report greater increases in PA motivation, psychological need satisfaction, enjoyment, perception of variety, self-efficacy, affective valence and a decrease in boredom. Affective responses to workouts were also examined.

Methods

Overview of study

This study was a prospective, randomized controlled intervention pilot study conducted in the upper Midwest. Forty-seven low-active young adults were randomly assigned to either an eight-week PA variety intervention or a PA consistency comparison condition. PA was assessed via accelerometer (e.g., ActiGraph) and self-report at baseline and eight weeks. Psychosocial variables and affect were assessed via self-report at baseline, four, and eight weeks (i.e., post-intervention). This was an eight-week intervention given the effect previous PA variety interventions have had on PA participation and psychosocial variables [16,20]. This study received approval from the University of Minnesota’s IRB and the study’s ID is STUDY00017749. Written consent was obtained from all participants.

Participants

Participants (n = 47) were recruited from September 19, 2023 through February 5, 2024 through psychology and kinesiology in-class announcements, email, and word of mouth. Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) reported engaging in no or low levels of PA [less than 90 minutes of moderate to vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) per week)], (2) capable of completing a 30- minute session of PA, and (3) 18–25 years of age. Exclusion criteria included the following: (1) pregnancy, (2) cannot read in English, (3) no access to the internet, (4) healthcare providers had instructed them not to be active, and/or (5) any medical condition that would make PA unsafe or unwise.

Procedures

Interested individuals contacted the primary investigator via email. The screening form was then emailed to interested individuals to determine eligibility. Following this, an in-person or online video conferencing meeting was scheduled to review detailed information about the study and the consent form. Individuals who remained eligible and interested completed the written consent form, and were then scheduled to pick up the accelerometer and sent the baseline questionnaires. Following the seven days of scheduled accelerometer wear time, participants returned the accelerometer and were randomized via a 1:1 ratio to either the variety or consistency condition using a random number generator in Microsoft Excel. Additionally, participants scheduled the first motivational phone session at this time.

Both conditions completed weekly, individual counseling sessions for the first four weeks, then every other week for the final four weeks (i.e., at six and eight weeks) of the eight- week intervention (the only component that differed between the conditions was the assignment of variety in PA or not). Sessions were scheduled at a time convenient for participants. To support participants’ sense of competence, counseling sessions emphasized the importance of improvements experienced in PA. Participants recognized their improvement through support received during their sessions regarding their perceived ability to find success in workouts. To support participants’ sense of autonomy, counseling sessions emphasized the importance of choosing the timing of a workout and the type of workout (for the variety condition) to be completed. Participant autonomy for PA was recognized through reminders that they were in charge of their behavior. To support participants’ sense of relatedness, the counseling sessions reiterated the notion that the researchers were there to support them and their PA. The counseling sessions were held either via phone or Zoom (see Table 1 for individual session topics).

Table 1. Timeline and content of counseling sessions.

Session	Strategy	Content
1	Overview of intervention	Describe the purpose of calls. Introduce the importance of variety/consistency in PA. Discuss barriers they currently face for PA. Schedule next session.
2	Autonomy	Discuss importance of feeling in control of actions. Remind participants they can choose the workouts (for variety condition) they do and when they do them. Prompt planning and time management. Schedule next session.
3	Competence	Discuss importance of feeling capable. Emphasize small improvements already made and how significant this accomplishment is. Provide instruction and encouragement. Schedule next session.
4	Relatedness	Discuss importance of having social support. Suggest strategies for gaining social support. Provide support to participants. Schedule next session.
5	Motivation and planning	Discuss importance of planning out workouts. Encourage planning that enhances motivation through timing or accountability. Address persisting barriers to PA. Provide assistance with planning. Schedule next session.
6	Enjoyment	Discuss importance of enjoyment for PA maintenance. Encourage participants to identify positive feelings and sensations they experience during activity. Discuss negative experiences in PA. Develop final goals. Give instructions and link for final assessments.

Open in a new tab

Each of the strategies used were tailored to enhance the basic psychological needs of self-determination theory, motivation, and enjoyment for PA.

High intensity interval training (HIIT) workouts were provided to participants in both conditions. HIIT consists of bouts of PA interspersed with rest intervals. Examples of exercises included in the provided HIIT workouts were jump squats, high knees, plank variations, push-ups, jumping jacks, and other bodyweight exercises. Given this was a home-based study, HIIT workouts were presented to participants via a condition-specific website to allow participants to complete the workouts in a space and time of their choosing. Despite individual counseling sessions not occurring each week of the intervention, participants in both conditions received weekly phone calls to log their PA from the previous week. All PA was logged regardless of if it was from the assigned website or an outside activity.

Variety condition.

Upon completion of the randomization, participants in the variety condition were sent the link to their condition’s website via email. The variety website contained 14 distinct HIIT videos. The videos were 30 minutes long and included a five-minute warm-up, 20-minute workout, and a five-minute cool down. The website also included workout plans on a PDF in a list format to allow participants to complete workouts without the need of a video. Video demonstrations of each exercise were available on the website. The exercise example videos included options for modifications to provide greater accessibility (e.g., regular push-ups, vs. knee push-ups, vs. wall push-ups). The variety condition was instructed to complete at least three different HIIT workouts per week and given encouragement to complete more than this if possible. Additionally, participants were informed at the beginning of the intervention they must choose different workouts throughout the week that were provided on the website. They did have the option to repeat workouts on a week-to- week basis but were instructed to not repeat any workouts during the same week.

Consistency condition.

The consistency condition also received access to their website via email. The only difference between the variety and consistency condition’s websites was the consistency condition’s website contained just one HIIT video. Similar to the variety intervention, the consistency condition’s video was 30 minutes long and included a five-minute warm-up, 20-minute workout, and a five-minute cool down. The website also contained the workout plan on a PDF and video exercise examples. The consistency condition was instructed to complete the provided HIIT workout three times per week and given encouragement to complete more than this if possible.

Measures

Primary aim: Feasibility.

Feasibility was assessed by examining acceptability and implementation. Level of acceptability was based on attendance at the motivational phone sessions and consumer satisfaction questionnaire responses (items were on a seven-point Likert scale). Implementation was based on recruitment and retention rates. We examined several variables to answer the question, “Can this study be done?”, as is recommended by Eldridge and colleagues [34]. Specifically, we examined the number of eligible participants, percent of participants randomized from the eligible participant pool, follow-up rates, and time needed to collect data.

Secondary dependent variables: PA participation and psychosocial variables.

PA was assessed via an accelerometer and a PA recall conducted by phone. PA was assessed at baseline and eight weeks via the ActiGraph. The ActiGraph is an electronic device worn on the right hip to identify motion, steps taken, energy expenditure, and time spent in different intensities of activity (light, moderate, hard, and very hard) [35,36]. Moderate, hard, and very hard intensity PA were combined to determine participants’ MVPA. For ActiGraph data to be considered valid, participants needed to reach at least two days of valid wear time [37]. Psychosocial questionnaires included PA motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, enjoyment, boredom, PA feeling, self-efficacy, and affective valence. PA minutes per week were assessed during every week of the program using the 7-Day PA Recall Interview (PAR). The 7-day PAR [38] is considered the best measure for self-assessing PA and was used in this study to collect weekly self-reported PA participation during the counseling sessions [39].

The following psychosocial variables were assessed at baseline, four, and eight weeks. Motivation was assessed by two separate measures. The 19-item Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-2) examined dimensions of motivation, as follows: amotivation (lack of motivation), external regulation (acting due to external guidance or pressure), introjected regulation (acting due to internal pressures), identified regulation (acting due to perceived importance of behavior), internal regulation (acting to achieve desired outcomes), and intrinsic motivation (acting due to internal rewards) [40]. The 30-item Motives for PA Measure-Revised (MPAM-R) examined motives for PA, including interest/enjoyment, competence, appearance, fitness, and social [41]. Validity has been established for both the BREQ-2 [35] and MPAM-R [42]. The 18-item Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise (PNSE) scale assessed satisfaction of psychological needs [43]. The PNSE has high reliability and is a commonly used measure for psychological needs [44].

The 18-item PA Enjoyment Scale (PACES) measured enjoyment [45]. This measure is reliable and valid [45]. The five-item Bored of Sports Scale (BOSS) assessed boredom in PA [27]. The BOSS is a reliable scale [27]. The Perceived Exercise Variety (PVE) questionnaire examined the perception of variety in PA [46]. The PVE is both valid and reliable [46]. The 12-item Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory (EFI) measured PA feeling [47]. The EFI has been shown to correlate with related constructs [47]. The 10-item Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES) assessed confidence in one’s ability to engage in PA [48]. This scale has acceptable reliability and validity among different populations [49]. The last psychosocial variable, affective valence (range of liking/dislike), was examined with the two-item Feeling Scale (FS) at one, four, and eight weeks during one of the weekly workouts [50]. The FS is reliable for assessing in-PA affect [46]. Full measures can be found in S1 File questionnaires.

Data analysis

A priori comparison was conducted to analyze the total PA participation between the variety and consistency conditions. Between groups analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to measure the effect of the intervention on the dependent variables at four and eight weeks. Baseline measures were included as covariates to control for baseline differences between conditions. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each condition for the dependent variables to observe changes from baseline to eight weeks.

Additionally, given the small sample size, “marginal significance” was discussed for findings when p < .10 [51]. Data were analyzed using SPSS (v29.0) and Microsoft Excel (v16.84). The ActiGraph data was analyzed using ActiLife (v6.12.1). MVPA was the only ActiGraph data included in data analysis.

Results

There were no between-group differences for any demographic variable or MVPA at baseline (Table 2). For baseline psychosocial variables, there were no differences between groups except for one subscale of the BREQ-2, identified regulation. Specifically, the variety intervention condition scored significantly higher on the identified regulation subscale of the BREQ-2 when compared to the consistency intervention (p = .041).

Table 2. Participant demographics by condition.

Characteristic	Total Sample (n-47)	Variety (n = 25)	Consistency (n = 22)	P-Value for Group Differences
Age	19.94 (1.90)	19.92 (1.98)	19.95 (1.86)	.951
Gender (%)				.620
Female	79%	76%	82%
Male	19%	20%	18%
Non-conforming	2%	4%	0%
Race (%)				.280
Asian	40%	36%	45%
Black/African American	11%	8%	14%
White	45%	52%	36%
Other	4%	4%	5%
Ethnicity (%)				.750
Hispanic	11%	12%	9%
Not Hispanic or Latino	89%	88%	91%
Baseline Objective MVPA	251.19 (127.05)	258.93 (123.80)	241.35 (136.47)	.739
Baseline Subjective MVPA	73.72 (85.36)	80.00 (92.11)	66.50 (78.63)	.610

Open in a new tab

MVPA = Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

Feasibility

A flow chart detailing participant recruitment, screening, randomization, and retention is shown in Fig 1. Seventy-two potential participants were screened during the recruitment process, with 25 excluded due to lack of interest or deemed ineligible due to age and/or prior levels of PA. The retention rate was 92% for the variety intervention and 77% for the consistency comparison, with an 85% retention rate overall. There was no differential drop-out between conditions at four or eight weeks. Additionally, there were no differences in the demographic variables between those who dropped out (n = 7) and those who completed the study (n = 40).

Participants completed a mean number of 5.4 (SD = 0.14) of the six motivational phone sessions (98%). The consumer satisfaction mean score was 6.33 out of 7 (see Table 3). Participants in the variety intervention condition self-reported marginally significant higher use of workouts from the website, f(1,41)=3.682, p = .076, d = .08, and total workouts, f(1,41)=3.072, p = .062, d = .08, than the consistency comparison condition (Table 3). There were no differences between groups for participating in workouts not provided on the website or on the intervention satisfaction questionnaire.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for intervention adherence and satisfaction by conditions.

Variable	Total		Variety		Consistency
Variable	M	(SD)	M	(SD)	M	(SD)
Website Workouts per Week	2.17	(1.26)	2.48^α	(1.16)	1.76	(1.30)
Additional Workouts per Week	0.70	(0.70)	0.66	(0.71)	0.73	(0.69)
Total Workouts per Week	3.14	(0.77)	3.33^α	(0.72)	2.93	(0.79)
Intervention Satisfaction	6.33	(0.72)	6.30	(0.82)	6.37	(0.60)

Open in a new tab

^α

Difference is marginally significant at p < 0.10; *Difference is significant at p < .05; **Difference is significant at p < .01; ***Difference is significant at p < .001; Standard deviations are listed in parentheses.

PA

There were no between-group differences for subjectively or objectively (see S1 Table) measured MVPA at four or eight weeks after controlling for baseline MVPA. The variety intervention condition reported marginally significant higher average weekly self-reported MVPA than the consistency condition, f(1,40)=3.416, p = .072, d = .08, after controlling for baseline MVPA (see S2 Table).

Based on the repeated measures analysis, participants in the variety intervention condition self-reported significant increases for MVPA from baseline to eight weeks, f(1,22)=18.678, p < .001, d = .46, with no changes reported for objectively measured PA. Participants in the consistency comparison condition also reported significantly increased MVPA from baseline to eight weeks based on the repeated measures analysis, f(1,16)=6.202, p = .024, d = .28.

Psychosocial variables

There were no differences between conditions for motivation (see S3 and S4 tables), enjoyment (Table S5), or boredom (Table S6) at four or eight weeks. The variety intervention reported significantly higher satisfaction for autonomy (Table S7) at four weeks [f(1,38)=6.768, p = .013, d = .15], perception of variety in PA (Table S8) at four [f(1,38)=0.778, p = .011, d = .16] and eight weeks [f(1,37)=8.443, p = .006, d = .19], tranquility (Table S9) at eight weeks [f(1,37)=8.783, p = .005, d = .19], and PA self-efficacy (Table S10) at eight weeks [f(1,37)=5.439, p = .025, d = .13] relative to the consistency comparison condition. The variety intervention reported marginally significant higher basic psychological needs satisfaction at four weeks [f(1,38)=2.859, p = .099, d = .07] relative to the consistency comparison condition (Table S7).

Based on repeated measures analysis, the variety intervention condition reported a significant increase in intrinsic motivation [f(1,22)=10.904, p = .003, d = .33], identified regulation [f(1,22)=13.144, p < .001, d = .37], motives of enjoyment [f(1,22)=12.523, p = .002, d = .36], motives of competence [f(1,22)=11.221, p = .003, d = .34], perceived competence [f(1,22)=11.221, p = .001, d = .39], perceived autonomy [f(1,22)=5.107, p = .034, d = .19], psychological need satisfaction [f(1,22)=2.652, p < .001, d = .04], enjoyment [f(1,22)=24.329, p < .001, d = 53], perception of variety in PA [f(1,22)=32.088, p < .001], engagement [f(1,22)=9.781, p = .005, d = .31], revitalization [f(1,22)=29.776, p < .001, d = .58], tranquility [f(1,22)=21.894, p < .001; d = .50], PA self-efficacy [f(1,22)=15.271, p < .001, d = .41], and decreases in boredom [f(1,22)=10.252, p = .004, d = .32] and physical exhaustion [f(1,22)=11.535, p = .003, d = .20] from baseline to eight weeks. The consistency comparison condition reported a significant increase in amotivation [f(1,16)=8.157, p = .011, d = .34], identified regulation [f(1,16)=5.755, p = .029, d = .27], motives of enjoyment [f(1,22)=11.221, p = .039, d = .24], and enjoyment [f(1,16)=6.952, p = .018, d = .30] from baseline to eight weeks.

There were no between group differences for pleasurable or enjoyment affect at any time point (Table S11). The variety intervention did report an increase in pleasurable affect before [f(1,22)=6.823, p = .016, d = 24], during [f(1,22)=9.307, p = .006, d = .30], and after [f(1,22)=7.560, p = .012, d = .26] the workout from baseline to eight weeks. The variety intervention also reported an increase in enjoyment affect before [f(1,22)=9.722, p = .005, d = .31] and during [f(1,22)=7.057, p = .014, d = .24] the workout from baseline to eight weeks. The consistency comparison condition experienced no changes in either affect from baseline to eight weeks.

Discussion

This home-based PA variety intervention appears feasible based on meeting the acceptability and implementation parameters. Specifically, the recruitment goal was met, as 47 participants were randomized. The retention rate (85%) was higher than the 80% retention goal. Additionally, participants completed a mean number of 98% of the motivational phone sessions, which surpassed the goal of 75%. The mean rating for participant satisfaction in the variety condition was 6.30 while the consistency comparison was 6.37, both exceeding the goal of six on the seven-point scale.

Regarding efficacy, this study suggests that a variety intervention may be efficacious for increasing PA relative to a consistency comparison; however, the results are inconclusive. Consistent with the hypothesis and previous studies [16,20], the variety intervention condition reported more average weekly self-reported MVPA minutes at the counseling sessions than the consistency comparison condition. Additionally, Chiang and colleagues [52] examined how a home-based PA program that allowed participants to choose their workouts from impacted PA participation. Participants who were in the home-based choice intervention reported higher PA participation relative to the control. It is possible having more choice also influenced the findings of the present study. This is further supported as variety participants also reported completing more HIIT sessions from the assigned website than the control participants.

Despite the variety intervention condition reporting higher average weekly self-reported MVPA at the weekly counseling sessions, there were no between-group differences for objectively or subjectively measured MVPA at the four- or eight-week assessment sessions after controlling for baseline. A potential confounding variable that may explain the lack of MVPA differences between groups at four and eight weeks specifically is that the consistency comparison condition was an active control, meaning the weekly counseling sessions could have led to increases in their PA levels. The sessions were designed to enhance participants’ basic psychological needs through supporting competence, autonomy, and relatedness. When satisfied, these basic psychological needs lead individuals to gain a sense of intrinsic motivation [10]. Since both conditions received these sessions and experienced increases in PA over time, it is possible that all participants felt compelled to complete the workouts provided to them. This is supported by the fact that both conditions significantly increased their PA levels from baseline to eight weeks. Regardless, the present study suggests that variety may lead to increased PA participation.

Contrary to the hypothesis and previous research, there were no between-group differences for motivation at four or eight weeks; however, participants in the variety intervention condition reported significantly increased intrinsic motivation from baseline to eight weeks, which does align with previous research [16,17]. The lack of differences between groups for motivation can also potentially be attributed to the weekly counseling sessions that were designed to enhance these forms of motivation specifically for both groups. Further, the study duration may not have been sufficient for the intervention design to significantly influence participant motivation.

Consistent with the hypothesis, the variety intervention condition reported higher levels of psychological needs satisfaction and autonomy at four weeks. However, there were no between-group differences for psychological needs satisfaction at eight weeks. The variety intervention condition increased their perceived competence, autonomy, and satisfaction of basic psychological needs from baseline to eight weeks. The variety intervention condition reporting an increase in both satisfaction of basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation from baseline to eight weeks aligns with SDT as PA also increased for this condition during this time [10,11,53].

Contrary to the hypothesis and previous research [20,21], there were no between-group differences for enjoyment or boredom at four or eight weeks. Glaros and Janelle [20] conducted an eight-week intervention and found increased enjoyment in a variety condition as compared to a static condition. However, the variety condition changed the type of activity they were doing every two weeks. It is possible that if participants in the present study changed activity every two weeks rather than completing the same mix of HIIT workouts throughout the entire intervention, an increase in enjoyment may have been observed. Although there were no differences between groups, the variety intervention condition did report significantly decreased boredom from baseline to eight weeks. Previous research has not examined the relationship between boredom and variety in PA. However, Wolff and colleagues [27] observed that low levels of boredom are associated with increased PA, which aligns with the increase in PA from baseline to eight weeks for the intervention condition.

Consistent with the hypothesis, participants in the variety condition reported significantly higher perceived variety at four weeks and higher perceived variety, self-efficacy, and tranquility at eight weeks relative to the consistency condition. There were no between-group differences for engagement, revitalization, physical exhaustion, or affective valence at any time point. In spite of these similarities between groups, the variety condition reported a significant increase in perceived variety of PA, self-efficacy, engagement, revitalization, and tranquility, while also reporting a decrease in physical exhaustion from baseline to eight weeks. Previously, Sylvester and colleagues [46] found that perceived variety was positively related to PA participation. No previous research has examined variety’s impact on self-efficacy, engagement, revitalization, tranquility, physical exhaustion, or affective valence.

There were several limitations of this study. First, participants were primarily female and non-Hispanic, which limits the generalizability of the results. Second, due to this being a pilot study examining the feasibility and acceptability of variety in PA, a small sample size (n = 47) was recruited. The nature of the study also portended that no power analysis would be ran, which lowered the ability to detect between-group differences, which resulted in the discussion “marginal significance” to advise that findings be interpreted with caution and conclusions not be overstated. Third, despite participants reporting that they were active less than 90 minutes per week during the screening process, some were above this threshold during the baseline data collection.

Fourth, participants in both conditions engaged in physical activities beyond the provided workouts, which may have contributed to the lack of differences between groups. Fifth, both conditions receiving the weekly counseling session may have acted as a confounder, which also may have contributed to the lack of differences between groups. Lastly, there was a large gap in PA participation when comparing the subjective and objective results. This gap may be due to the small sample of objectively measured data, due to low compliance with wearing the monitor and lost data due to malfunctioning of the ActiGraph [54]. Despite research suggesting two days of validated wear time of the ActiGraph may be sufficient [37,55], not all participants reach this threshold. Further, Trost and colleagues [56] observed the minimum accelerometer wear time for reliable data to be 10 or more hours per day for at least four days. Although supported by previous research, it is possible the two-day minimum wear time led to inaccurate results.

The present study had several strengths. This study was the first to examine variety in a home-based intervention. PA variety interventions thus far have not been home-based, despite previous research suggesting that home-based PA interventions are efficacious in college populations [29,57]. This study also was the first to examine variety exclusively within cardiovascular fitness classes rather than individual activities (i.e., running, rowing, and cycling) and resistance training [16,20]. This study was also the first to examine variety’s impact on PA feeling, self-efficacy, and affective valence. Finally, this study’s sample was relatively diverse when compared to the overall population of the recruitment area.

The home-based, PA variety intervention appears feasible based on recruitment, retention, satisfaction, and adherence. There was some evidence for efficacy as the variety intervention had higher PA, self-efficacy, tranquility, autonomy, and psychological need satisfaction, although some of these findings were marginal. Future research should consider implementation of variety in PA using novel strategies, new populations, and longer interventions. Specifically, studies should examine variety through variation of types of PA (i.e., swimming, sports, rock climbing etc.) in the same program. Studies should examine the application of variety to fulfill PA guidelines of at least 150 minutes of moderate or 75 minutes of vigorous cardiovascular PA, in addition to two sessions of strength training per week [2]. Particularly, studies should examine the effect of variety in PA among older adults, non-college educated individuals, males, and Hispanic individuals, as research is lacking in this area among these groups [58]. Finally, studies should examine longer interventions of various lengths, and post-intervention follow-ups to determine the long-term effects of a PA variety intervention.

There was some evidence that variety may be important for encouraging PA participation; however, some of the results were marginal and there were inconsistencies across measures and timepoints. Despite the inconsistent findings, this study has possible implications for practitioners. Specifically, practitioners should consider providing a variety of activities to clients to enhance one’s self-efficacy to be physically active. Providing variety through choice in individual exercises and workouts may enhance perceived autonomy, which is a key component in supporting and building intrinsic motivation. Additionally, practitioners should consult and support clients when providing home-based PA to ensure psychological needs are being satisfied. Both strategies proved effective in improving individual’s PA participation and motivation for both conditions. Finally, practitioners should consider client preferences when determining PA routines and addressing PA barriers. Future studies should address the limitations of the present study by examining variety through novel methods, recruiting larger and more diverse samples, applying different intervention lengths and follow-ups, and utilizing objective measures of PA.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Means and standard deviations for weekly minutes of subjectively and objectively measured MVPA by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s001.docx^{(15.4KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Means and standard deviations for average weekly MVPA of the intervention by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s002.docx^{(14.6KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Means and standard deviations for BREQ-2 by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s003.docx^{(23.4KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Means and standard deviations for MPAM-R by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s004.docx^{(22.9KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Means and standard deviations for PACES by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s005.docx^{(20.3KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Means and standard deviations for BOSS by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s006.docx^{(18.9KB, docx)}

S7 Table. Means and standard deviations for PNSE by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s007.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

S8 Table. Means and standard deviations for PVE by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s008.docx^{(19.1KB, docx)}

S9 Table. Means and standard deviations for EFI by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s009.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

S10 Table. Means and standard deviations for ESES by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s010.docx^{(15.4KB, docx)}

S11 Table. Means and standard deviations for FS by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s011.docx^{(22.8KB, docx)}

S1 File. Questionnaires.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s012.docx^{(52.1KB, docx)}

S2 File. Data.

(XLSX)

pone.0323195.s013.xlsx^{(38.6KB, xlsx)}

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kaele Ojeda and Chloe Nelson for their assistance with this project. We would also like to thank all the participants in this study. Their commitment and the time they spent dedicated to actively engaging in this study was especially appreciated.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (grant T32CA163184 to TMD).

References

1.Lee I, Shiroma E, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair S, Katzmarzyk P. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, et al. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Warburton D, Bredin S. Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic review of current systematic reviews. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017;32(5):541–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Zhao M, Veeranki S, Magnussen C, Xi B. Recommended physical activity and all cause and cause specific mortality in US adults: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Schoenborn CA, Stommel M. Adherence to the 2008 adult physical activity guidelines and mortality risk. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(5):514–21. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Cocca A, Liukkonen J, Mayorga-Vega D, Viciana-Ramírez J. Health-related physical activity levels in Spanish youth and young adults. Percept Mot Skills. 2014;118(1):247–60. doi: 10.2466/10.06.PMS.118k16w1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Hallal P, Andersen L, Bull F, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.National Center for Health Statistics. Participation in leisure-time aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities that meet the federal 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans among adults aged 18 and over by selected characteristics: United States selected years 1998–2017. National Center for Health Statistics; 2018. [Google Scholar]
9.Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11(4):227–68. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Deci EL, Ryan RM, editors. Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
11.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020;61:101860. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12.Behzadnia B, Mohammadzadeh H, Ahmadi M. Autonomy-supportive behaviors promote autonomous motivation, knowledge structures, motor skills learning and performance in physical education. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(6):1692–705. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9727-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Corella C, Abarca-Sos A, Gallardo LO, Martín-Albo J, Zaragoza J. Longitudinal study of physical activity in college students: Testing self-determination theory based on stages of change. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(12):9053–62. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01269-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Fletcher J. Applying self-determination theory to college students’ physical-activity behavior: understanding the motivators for physical (in) activity. Commun Stud. 2016;67(5):489–508. [Google Scholar]
15.Quartiroli A, Maeda H. The Effects of a Lifetime Physical Fitness (LPF) Course on College Students’ Health Behaviors. Int J Exerc Sci. 2016;9(2):136–48. doi: 10.70252/LRMB1982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Sylvester BD, Standage M, McEwan D, Wolf SA, Lubans DR, Eather N, et al. Variety support and exercise adherence behavior: experimental and mediating effects. J Behav Med. 2016;39(2):214–24. doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9688-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Sylvester B, Curran T, Standage M, Sabiston C, Beauchamp M. Predicting exercise motivation and exercise behavior: a moderated mediation model testing the interaction between perceived exercise variety and basic psychological needs satisfaction. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2018;36:50–6. [Google Scholar]
18.Barkley JE, Ryan EJ, Bellar D, Bliss MV, Roemmich JN. The variety of exercise equipment and physical activity participation in children. J Sport Behav. 2011;34(2):137. [Google Scholar]
19.Dimmock J, Jackson B, Podlog L, Magaraggia C. The effect of variety expectations on interest, enjoyment, and locus of causality in exercise. Motiv Emot. 2013;37(1):146–53. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9294-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
20.Glaros NM, Janelle CM. Varying the mode of cardiovascular exercise to increase adherence. J Sport Behav. 2001;24(1). [Google Scholar]
21.Juvancic-Heltzel JA, Glickman EL, Barkley JE. The effect of variety on physical activity: a cross-sectional study. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):244–51. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182518010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Zhao X, Wu X, Wang J. The impact of exercise variety on satisfaction and motivation. Front Psychol. 2020;11:502173. [Google Scholar]
23.Chang YK, Chang CH, Hung TM. Exercise variety and cognitive benefits: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;53:101837. [Google Scholar]
24.Michael SL, Coffield E, Lee SM, Fulton JE. Variety, Enjoyment, and Physical Activity Participation Among High School Students. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):223–30. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Abós Á, García-González L, Aibar A, Sevil-Serrano J. Towards a better understanding of the role of perceived task variety in physical education: A self-determination theory approach. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;56:101988. [Google Scholar]
26.Brooke HL, Corder K, Griffin SJ, Ekelund U, van Sluijs EMF. More of the same or a change of scenery: an observational study of variety and frequency of physical activity in British children. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:761. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Wolff W, Bieleke M, Stähler J, Schüler J. Too bored for sports? Adaptive and less-adaptive latent personality profiles for exercise behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;53:101851. [Google Scholar]
28.Ferreira Silva RM, Mendonça CR, Azevedo VD, Raoof Memon A, Noll PRES, Noll M. Barriers to high school and university students’ physical activity: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0265913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Iannaccone A, Fusco A, Jaime S, Baldassano S, Cooper J, Proia P. Stay home, stay active with Superjump®: a home-based activity to prevent sedentary lifestyle during COVID-19 outbreak. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10135. [Google Scholar]
30.Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, et al. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(4):389–98. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Liu S-H, Eaton CB, Driban JB, McAlindon TE, Lapane KL. Comparison of self-report and objective measures of physical activity in US adults with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(10):1355–64. doi: 10.1007/s00296-016-3537-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Delextrat AA, Warner S, Graham S, Neupert E. An 8-Week Exercise Intervention Based on Zumba Improves Aerobic Fitness and Psychological Well-Being in Healthy Women. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):131–9. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Eldridge S, Chan C, Campbell M, Bond C, Hopewell S, Thabane L. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Vanhelst J, Béghin L, Duhamel A, Bergman P, Sjöström M, Gottrand F. Comparison of uniaxial and triaxial accelerometry in the assessment of physical activity among adolescents under free-living conditions: the HELENA study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-26 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Morrow JR Jr. Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(9):1637–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Prescott S, Traynor JP, Shilliday I, Zanotto T, Rush R, Mercer TH. Minimum accelerometer wear-time for reliable estimates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour of people receiving haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01877-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Sallis JF, Haskell WL, Wood PD, Fortmann SP, Rogers T, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity assessment methodology in the Five-City Project. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121(1):91–106. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Hayden-Wade HA, Coleman KJ, Sallis JF, Armstrong C. Validation of the telephone and in-person interview versions of the 7-day PAR. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(5):801–9. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000064941.43869.4E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26(2):191–6. [Google Scholar]
41.Ryan RM, Fredrickson FM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int J Sport Psychol. 1997;28(4):335–54. [Google Scholar]
42.Battistelli A, Montani F, Guicciardi M, Bertinato L. Regulation of exercise behaviour and motives for physical activities: The Italian validation of BREQ and MPAM-R questionnaires. Psychologie Française. 2016;61(4):333–48. doi: 10.1016/j.psfr.2014.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
43.Wilson PM, Rogers WT, Rodgers WM, Wild TC. The Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2006;28(3):231–51. doi: 10.1123/jsep.28.3.231 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Zumbo BD, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C. Ordinal Versions of Coefficients Alpha and Theta for Likert Rating Scales. J Mod App Stat Meth. 2007;6(1):21–9. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1177992180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Kendzierski D, DeCarlo K. Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation studies. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1991;13(1). [Google Scholar]
46.Sylvester BD, Standage M, Ark TK, Sweet SN, Crocker PR, Zumbo BD, et al. Is variety a spice of (an active) life?: perceived variety, exercise behavior, and the mediating role of autonomous motivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;36(5):516–27. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Gauvin L, Rejeski WJ. The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory: Development and Initial Validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1993;15(4):403–23. doi: 10.1123/jsep.15.4.403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48.Kroll T, Kehn M, Ho P-S, Groah S. The SCI Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES): development and psychometric properties. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Mendoza-Vasconez AS, Marquez B, Benitez TJ, Marcus BH. Psychometrics of the self-efficacy for physical activity scale among a Latina women sample. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1097. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5998-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not What, but How One Feels: The Measurement of Affect during Exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1989;11(3):304–17. doi: 10.1123/jsep.11.3.304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
51.Pritschet L, Powell D, Horne Z. Marginally Significant Effects as Evidence for Hypotheses: Changing Attitudes Over Four Decades. Psychol Sci. 2016;27(7):1036–42. doi: 10.1177/0956797616645672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Chiang S-L, Shen C-L, Chen L-C, Lo Y-P, Lin C-H, Lin C-H. Effectiveness of a Home-Based Telehealth Exercise Training Program for Patients With Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;35(5):491–501. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Lewis BA, Schuver K. Primary research dimensions of exercise psychology. In Anshel MH, Petruzzello SJ, Labbé EE, editors. APA handbook of sport and exercise psychology: Exercise psychology. American Psychological Association; 2019. [Google Scholar]
55.Hart TL, Swartz AM, Cashin SE, Strath SJ. How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults?. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:62. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-62 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Trost SG, Mciver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11):S531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Dregney TM, Thul CM, Linde JA, Lewis BA. Affective responses to high intensity interval training relative to moderate intensity continuous training. Phys Act Health. 2023;7(1). [Google Scholar]
58.Whitfield GP, Hyde ET, Carlson SA. Participation in leisure-time aerobic physical activity among adults, national health interview survey, 1998–2018. J Phys Act Health. 2021;18(S1):S25-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2025 May 27;20(5):e0323195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Nov 2024

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r002

Decision Letter 0

Henri Tilga

28 Nov 2024

PONE-D-24-49440The Impact of Physical Activity Variety on Physical Activity ParticipationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dregney,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henri Tilga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript investigates the impact of physical activity variety on participation levels and associated psychosocial variables among college-aged individuals. Address the methodological limitations and enhance the intervention’s scope to strengthen the study’s validity and applicability.

Major Weaknesses:

1.The sample size (n=47) is small, limiting the ability to detect significant between-group differences.

2.Despite promising trends, key outcomes such as moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and enjoyment lack statistically significant differences between conditions.

3.Marginal significance in several findings (e.g., autonomy, self-efficacy) raises questions about the robustness of conclusions.

4.The sample is skewed toward female, non-Hispanic participants, limiting applicability to broader populations.

5. The variety intervention was restricted to High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) videos, which may not appeal to participants with diverse activity preferences. A broader variety (e.g., yoga, cycling) might yield more compelling results.

Minor Concerns:

1. Discrepancies between subjective and objective MVPA underscore potential biases in self-reporting, which should be addressed in future studies.

2. Measures such as boredom and enjoyment lack significant between-group differences, contrary to prior studies. This may indicate a need for adjustments in intervention design (e.g., changing activities more frequently).

Reviewer #2: Comments for the author

This manuscript, entitled 'The Impact of Physical Activity Variety on Physical Activity Participation,' addresses an important and interesting research issue that provides a reference for promoting physical activity among college-aged individuals. However, several descriptions in the manuscript are unclear and require more detail. In addition, there are too many tables. Please combine them or focus on the most important three to four tables, relegating all others to supplemental tables..

1. In the abstract, it is suggested that the first sentence be rewritten for completion: 'Research indicates that variety (i.e., multiple types of activities) may be effective for increasing physical activity due to...?' Please provide a critical reason to complete the sentence."

2. In the abstract, what is the physical activity variety intervention? Please provide more details.

3. In the Methods section of the abstract, please describe the major outcome indicators investigated in the study and provide details about the primary statistical methods used.

4. In the Conclusion section of the abstract, it is highlighted that 'there was some evidence that variety may lead to increased physical activity...' However, you mentioned that the study results indicated 'Participants in the variety condition reported a marginally significant increase in weekly moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (p = .072).' Please revise the conclusion to reflect that this finding is not statistically significant.

5. On page 3, please change the description from 'type II diabetes' to the updated term 'type 2 diabetes'.

6. On page 3, in the second paragraph, you described that 'Researchers examining physical activity (PA) among young adults and college students often utilize Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to guide interventions.' If this statement is based on previous evidence, using the word 'will' might be inappropriate. Additionally, please provide more details about the examples of PA variety in the following sentence: 'Initial research on PA variety (i.e., multiple types of activities)...'.

7. Regarding the PA variety intervention, you mentioned that limited literature was found. However, there are some studies applied interventions of patient-preferred PA types. Please include the following references and discuss more details about using patient-preferred PA types.

Chiang, S. L., Shen, C. L., Chen, L. C., Lo, Y. P., Lin, C. H., & Lin, C. H.* (2020). Effectiveness of a home-based, telehealth exercise training program for patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 35 (5), 491–501.

Chiang, S. L., Shen, C. L., Lee, M. S., Lin, C. H., & Lin, C. H.* (2023). Effectiveness of a 12-week tele-exercise training program on cardiorespiratory fitness and heart rate recovery in patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity: A randomized controlled trial. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 20(4), 339-350.: https://doi:10.1111/wvn.12607

Lai, C. Y., Lin, C. H., Chao, T. C., Lin, C. H., Chang, C. C., Huang, C. Y., & Chiang, S. L. (2024). Effectiveness of a 12-week tele-exercise training program in patients with long COVID. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 67(5), 101853. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2024.101853.

8. On page 4, please expand the discussion in the sentence: 'Furthermore, few studies have examined the efficacy of PA interventions focusing on variety.' Additionally, in the following reference, it is also reported that there was a significant increase in PA self-efficacy.

9. On page 4, you mentioned, 'Home-based PA is an effective method for college students to engage in enjoyable and sufficient PA,' which I agree with. However, in my opinion, most college students engage in home-based PA rather than using activity facilities. Therefore, home-based PA might not be the issue. Alternatively, you could highlight the prevalence of engaging in activity facilities among college students. Please clarify.

10. Please provide the sample size estimation.

11. Please move the 'Measure' section to the paragraph before 'Data Analysis' and after the 'Intervention' section.

12. PA data was collected using the ActiGraph. Please provide more details about the measurement tool, especially its validity and reliability.

13. On page 9, the paragraph states: 'High-intensity interval training (HIIT) workouts were provided to participants in both conditions....' What are the details of the exercise prescription, including frequency, time, and duration?

14. In the Results section, there are too many tables. Please combine them or focus on the most important three to four tables, and relegate all other tables to supplemental materials.

15. In the Discussion section, the major findings should be discussed, especially in comparison to the previous studies mentioned above.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chia-Huei Lin

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments_20241126.docx

pone.0323195.s014.docx^{(42.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2025 May 27;20(5):e0323195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0

9 Dec 2024

Academic Editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

a. The title page now matches the required format and all necessary information is provided. Additionally, headers now match the journal’s preferred format. Finally, the figure file has been converted to a TIFF file.

a. Thank you for catching this. A statement has been added at the end of the first paragraph of the methods section (see final paragraph of page 6) to address these concerns.

3. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

a. Fig. 1 now has a separate caption that includes the title on page 12 of the manuscript.

Reviewer A

Major concerns:

1. The sample size (n=47) is small, limiting the ability to detect significant between-group differences.

a. Thank you for raising this. We agree with this limitation. We have listed sample size as one of the limitations of this study and called for future studies to include larger samples in the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 19 and paragraph 2 on page 20).

2. Despite promising trends, key outcomes such as moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and enjoyment lack statistically significant differences between conditions.

a. We agree this is a fair concern. We have listed this as a limitation in the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 19).

3. Marginal significance in several findings (e.g., autonomy, self-efficacy) raises questions about the robustness of conclusions.

a. We recognize this as a limitation of the manuscript. Therefore, this limitation is discussed in the analysis (see paragraph 1 on page 11) and discussion sections (see paragraph 1 on page 19).

4. The sample is skewed toward female, non-Hispanic participants, limiting applicability to broader populations.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We have listed this as a limitation and called for future studies to include more diverse samples in the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 19 and paragraph 2 on page 20).

a. We also view this as a limitation to this study. Therefore, we discussed this topic in the limitation section of the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 19)

Minor concerns:

1. Discrepancies between subjective and objective MVPA underscore potential biases in self-reporting, which should be addressed in future studies.

b. We recognize this as a limitation. Due to this, we have listed this as a limitation and called for future studies to include more diverse samples in the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 19 and paragraph 2 on page 20).

a. Thank you for raising this point. We have discussed the potential of the situation described here in the discussion section (see paragraph 1 on page 18).

Reviewer B

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We have restructured the first sentence to reflect this recommendation. It now states that we believe a variety intervention is effective due to existing research (see abstract).

2. In the abstract, what is the physical activity variety intervention? Please provide more details.

a. This is a very good point. We have added further explanation to what the variety and consistency groups received for content and instructions (see abstract).

3. In the Methods section of the abstract, please describe the major outcome indicators investigated in the study and provide details about the primary statistical methods used.

a. Thank you for catching this. The major outcomes are listed in the first sentence of the abstract methods section and the primary statistical methods used are noted in the final sentence of the section (see abstract).

a. We agree with this point. This part of the conclusion has been removed (see abstract).

5. 5. On page 3, please change the description from 'type II diabetes' to the updated term 'type 2 diabetes'.

a. Thank you for catching this. This change has been made (see paragraph 1, page 3).

a. Good point. The word “will has been removed. Additionally, an example of a specific intervention has been added to the third paragraph (see paragraph 2 on page 3).

a. Thank you sending these our way. We have elected to include these studies in the discussion section. Although participants in these studies had access to multiple types of physical activity, they were not specifically instructed to complete different exercises/workouts. Therefore, we felt this would contribute to more appropriately to the variety narrative in the discussion (see paragraph 2, page 16).

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We have elected not to include this study in the introduction. Although participants in this study had access to multiple types of physical activity, they were not specifically instructed to complete different exercises/workouts. Therefore, we do not feel this would contribute to the variety narrative in the introduction.

a. This is a very good point and something we thought would be the case as well. However, research suggests that college student view distance to an activity facility as a significant barrier (cited in this paragraph with citation #24). Therefore, we left the section as is.

10. Please provide the sample size estimation.

a. Thank you for catching this. A description for while 40 participants was chosen is now included in the introduction (see paragraph 2, page 5).

11. Please move the 'Measure' section to the paragraph before 'Data Analysis' and after the 'Intervention' section.

a. We appreciate this suggestion. This change has been made.

12. PA data was collected using the ActiGraph. Please provide more details about the measurement tool, especially its validity and reliability.

a. This is a very good idea. We have added more details regrding the ActiGraph and a sentence establishing validity and reliability (see paragraph 2, page 9).

a. The details for the variety intervention, including the details of the exercises are discussed in the variety section of the procedures (see paragraph 1, page 8).

14. In the Results section, there are too many tables. Please combine them or focus on the most important three to four tables, and relegate all other tables to supplemental materials.

a. Thank you for pointing this out and we share this concern. We have combined the PA tables into one (see top of page 14). The psychosocial tables have been relegated to supplemental materials as requested.

15. In the Discussion section, the major findings should be discussed, especially in comparison to the previous studies mentioned above.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We believe this has been addressed through the incorporation of one of the studies you suggested (see paragraph 2, page 16). The citation is number 48.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0323195.s016.docx^{(20.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r004

Decision Letter 1

Henri Tilga

3 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-49440R1The Impact of Physical Activity Variety on Physical Activity ParticipationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dregney,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henri Tilga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Abstract

1. The abstract mentions “marginally significant” results (e.g., p = 0.072), which may be misleading for readers. Revise this to reflect the exploratory nature of these findings.

2. The description of the intervention and major outcomes in the abstract should be more concise while retaining clarity.

Introduction

In discussing PA variety, the authors cite limited research but fail to integrate all relevant studies fully. Include additional literature.

Methods

1. Provide more details regarding the ActiGraph device’s reliability and thresholds for defining valid wear-time and MVPA.

2. The counseling sessions’ structure is described, but specific motivational strategies (e.g., goal setting, feedback) should be outlined more clearly.

Results

Some tables (e.g., psychosocial variables) are detailed but dense. Consider condensing tables into key findings and relegating supplementary data to appendices.

Discussion

1. Expand on the finding that the consistency group also improved in MVPA and motivation. This suggests that weekly counseling sessions might have driven outcomes, not just the variety intervention. Discuss this as a potential confounder.

2. Highlight the implications for practitioners more clearly, focusing on the feasibility of home-based variety interventions and strategies to enhance adherence.

Major Concerns:

1. While the authors report significant increases in variables such as self-efficacy, autonomy, and tranquility, many findings are described as “marginally significant” (p-values near 0.10). It would be helpful to reframe these results cautiously and avoid overstating conclusions. Additionally, providing effect sizes for all analyses would clarify the magnitude of observed differences.

2. The authors report adherence rates and satisfaction scores, which are commendable. However, further details on how participants adhered to completing varied workouts (e.g., participant logs or tracking systems) would strengthen the feasibility findings.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sarieh Poortaghi

**********

PLoS One. 2025 May 27;20(5):e0323195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1

14 Feb 2025

Journal Requirements

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected a mistake in that citations 47 and 48 were listed in the incorrect order. This mistake has been fixed on the reference page. Additionally, the citation at the bottom of page 3 has been updated to reflect the reference page with the article from Glaros & Janelle cited as article #20.

Reviewer 1

1. The abstract mentions “marginally significant” results (e.g., p = 0.072), which may be misleading for readers. Revise this to reflect the exploratory nature of these findings.

a. We agree with this point and appreciate the note. The methods and discussion portion of the abstract has been modified to reflect the exploratory nature of this study (see abstract).

2. The description of the intervention and major outcomes in the abstract should be more concise while retaining clarity.

a. We appreciate you pointing this out. We have cut down both the intervention description and the findings portion of the abstract.

3. In discussing PA variety, the authors cite limited research but fail to integrate all relevant studies fully. Include additional literature.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. We have added more research to the introduction at the bottom of page 3. Additional citations have also been added in the first paragraph of page 4.

4. Provide more details regarding the ActiGraph device’s reliability and thresholds for defining valid wear-time and MVPA.

a. We appreciate you for raising this concern and agree with the sentiment. We have added further discussion regarding the two day threshold, why it was used, and what could have been done differently in the limitations section (see paragraph 2, page 19).

5. The counseling sessions’ structure is described, but specific motivational strategies (e.g., goal setting, feedback) should be outlined more clearly.

a. We agree with this note. A table has been added to pages 7 and 8 that details the individual topics of each session.

6. Some tables (e.g., psychosocial variables) are detailed but dense. Consider condensing tables into key findings and relegating supplementary data to appendices.

a. We appreciate you pointing this out. We have modified the PA table to now be two supplementary tables to make it more concise and provide clarity (see supplemental tables 1 and 2).

7. Expand on the finding that the consistency group also improved in MVPA and motivation. This suggests that weekly counseling sessions might have driven outcomes, not just the variety intervention. Discuss this as a potential confounder.

a. Thank you for pointing this out. More detail has been added to the first paragraph of page 18.

8. Highlight the implications for practitioners more clearly, focusing on the feasibility of home-based variety interventions and strategies to enhance adherence.

a. We agree with this sentiment. A section has been added to the final paragraph on page 21 addressing these concerns.

9. While the authors report significant increases in variables such as self-efficacy, autonomy, and tranquility, many findings are described as “marginally significant” (p-values near 0.10). It would be helpful to reframe these results cautiously and avoid overstating conclusions. Additionally, providing effect sizes for all analyses would clarify the magnitude of observed differences.

a. Thank you for raising this concern. We have tried to be intentional about using the term “marginal” when discussing these findings to indicate that findings be used cautiously whenever possible. Additionally, we have added to the limitations section to clearly state the concerns you have raised (see page 20, paragraph 1).

b. Additionally, effect sizes have been added to all relevant findings.

10. The authors report adherence rates and satisfaction scores, which are commendable. However, further details on how participants adhered to completing varied workouts (e.g., participant logs or tracking systems) would strengthen the feasibility findings.

a. We apologize for not having this included earlier. We have now added a description of how activity was tracked at the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0323195.s017.docx^{(17.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r006

Decision Letter 2

Henri Tilga

7 Mar 2025

PONE-D-24-49440R2The Impact of Physical Activity Variety on Physical Activity ParticipationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dregney,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 21 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Henri Tilga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: There are several areas requiring improvement, particularly in methodology clarity, statistical interpretation, and discussion depth.

Abstract:

The use of "marginally significant" (p = 0.072) is misleading. Results should be cautiously interpreted.

The conclusion should briefly suggest practical applications of the findings.

Introduction

Some references are outdated (e.g., pre-2010 studies). Recent research (2022-2024) should be included.

The research gap should be more explicitly stated.

Methods

Sample size (n = 47) is small, reducing generalizability.

Lack of power analysis to justify sample size.

Weekly counseling sessions for both groups could be a confounder—this should be discussed in limitations.

Results

Many findings are described as "marginally significant" (p-values near 0.10). These should be cautiously framed.

Effect sizes should be reported consistently.

No post-hoc tests or multiple comparison corrections were mentioned.

Discussion

Does not critically assess why some hypotheses were not supported.

The role of PA enjoyment and boredom reduction needs deeper exploration.

Future research directions should be more specific.

Conclusion

Practical applications are vague—how can practitioners use these findings?

Should clearly discuss policy or intervention implications.

References

Some references are outdated (pre-2010).

A few recent studies (2022-2024) should be included to reflect current trends.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sarieh Poortaghi

**********

PLoS One. 2025 May 27;20(5):e0323195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 2

20 Mar 2025

Reviewer 1

Abstract:

1. The use of "marginally significant" (p = 0.072) is misleading. Results should be cautiously interpreted.

a. Thank you for raising this point. In the conclusion section of the abstract, there is now a disclaimer to interpret findings with caution given the use of marginal significance (see abstract).

2. The conclusion should briefly suggest practical applications of the findings.

a. We appreciate you raising this point. The conclusion of the abstract now concludes with practical applications of the findings related to supporting client psychological needs and providing home-based physical activity options (see abstract).

Introduction

3. Some references are outdated (e.g., pre-2010 studies). Recent research (2022-2024) should be included.

a. Thank you pointing this out. Study citation #4, 13, and 28 have been updated with more recent sources that provide updated information on the topic. Due to the limited number of studies that examined variety in physical activity program previously, authors deemed studies discussing this topic necessary to keep as they help set up the research gap.

4. The research gap should be more explicitly stated.

a. We feel this is a great point. We have gone back to the introduction to clarify the gaps this project was addressing and wrote them as a bridge to the purpose of the study (see top of page 5).

Methods

5. Sample size (n = 47) is small, reducing generalizability.

a. Thank you for raising this point. In the limitations section of the discussion, we have added more on why we used a small sample size. The reason being this study was a feasibility and acceptability study (see page 20, first paragraph).

6. Lack of power analysis to justify sample size.

a. Following the previous point, we also discussed why the small sample size used in a feasibility and acceptability study meant it would not be appropriate to have a power analysis. This is discussed as a limitation (see page 20, first paragraph).

7. Weekly counseling sessions for both groups could be a confounder—this should be discussed in limitations.

a. We appreciate this point. We have added a sentence discussing this confounder to the discussion section (see page 20, second paragraph).

Results

8. Many findings are described as "marginally significant" (p-values near 0.10). These should be cautiously framed.

a. We agree with this point and have addressed this issue in the abstract and the limitations section to clarify why this term was used (see abstract and page 20, first paragraph)

9. Effect sizes should be reported consistently.

a. Thank you for catching this. We have no added effect sizes for significant findings throughout the document.

10. No post-hoc tests or multiple comparison corrections were mentioned.

a. We appreciate you raising this concern. However, due to the small sample size and exploratory nature of this study, post-hoc tests were not used to avoid the risk of over misinterpretation.

Discussion

11. Does not critically assess why some hypotheses were not supported.

a. We agree with this concern. Discussion has been added to various sections of the discussion section where an unsupported hypothesis is discussed (see pages 18-19).

12. The role of PA enjoyment and boredom reduction needs deeper exploration.

a. Thank you for raising this point. Further clarification has been added to this discussion to talk about how enjoyment and boredom relate to other components and findings in this study (see page 19, paragraph 2).

13. Future research directions should be more specific.

a. We appreciate this point being brought to our attention. We have clarified some specific strategies in which future research directions could move (see pages 21-22, final paragraph-first paragraph).

Conclusion

14. Practical applications are vague—how can practitioners use these findings?

a. Thank you for raising this concern. The practical applications have been clarified (see end of page 22).

15. Should clearly discuss policy or intervention implications.

a. Thank you for raising this. We feel that the clarification of intervention implications in the discussion section has provided clarity to the discussion of this during the conclusion.

References

16. Some references are outdated (pre-2010).

17. A few recent studies (2022-2024) should be included to reflect current trends.

a. To address both of these points, where suitable, older studies were replaced with more recent ones to reflect the current environment. However, do the limited nature of studies similar to the present one, some integral older studies are still featured.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0323195.s018.docx^{(17.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r008

Decision Letter 3

Henri Tilga

4 Apr 2025

The Impact of Physical Activity Variety on Physical Activity Participation

PONE-D-24-49440R3

Dear Dr. Dregney,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Henri Tilga, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323195.r009

Acceptance letter

Henri Tilga

PONE-D-24-49440R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dregney,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Henri Tilga

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Means and standard deviations for weekly minutes of subjectively and objectively measured MVPA by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s001.docx^{(15.4KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Means and standard deviations for average weekly MVPA of the intervention by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s002.docx^{(14.6KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Means and standard deviations for BREQ-2 by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s003.docx^{(23.4KB, docx)}

S4 Table. Means and standard deviations for MPAM-R by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s004.docx^{(22.9KB, docx)}

S5 Table. Means and standard deviations for PACES by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s005.docx^{(20.3KB, docx)}

S6 Table. Means and standard deviations for BOSS by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s006.docx^{(18.9KB, docx)}

S7 Table. Means and standard deviations for PNSE by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s007.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

S8 Table. Means and standard deviations for PVE by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s008.docx^{(19.1KB, docx)}

S9 Table. Means and standard deviations for EFI by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s009.docx^{(21.4KB, docx)}

S10 Table. Means and standard deviations for ESES by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s010.docx^{(15.4KB, docx)}

S11 Table. Means and standard deviations for FS by condition.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s011.docx^{(22.8KB, docx)}

S1 File. Questionnaires.

(DOCX)

pone.0323195.s012.docx^{(52.1KB, docx)}

S2 File. Data.

(XLSX)

pone.0323195.s013.xlsx^{(38.6KB, xlsx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments_20241126.docx

pone.0323195.s014.docx^{(42.9KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0323195.s016.docx^{(20.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0323195.s017.docx^{(17.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_3.docx

pone.0323195.s018.docx^{(17.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0323195.ref001] 1.Lee I, Shiroma E, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair S, Katzmarzyk P. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref002] 2.Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, et al. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14854 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref003] 3.Warburton D, Bredin S. Health benefits of physical activity: a systematic review of current systematic reviews. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2017;32(5):541–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref004] 4.Zhao M, Veeranki S, Magnussen C, Xi B. Recommended physical activity and all cause and cause specific mortality in US adults: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2020;370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref005] 5.Schoenborn CA, Stommel M. Adherence to the 2008 adult physical activity guidelines and mortality risk. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(5):514–21. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref006] 6.Cocca A, Liukkonen J, Mayorga-Vega D, Viciana-Ramírez J. Health-related physical activity levels in Spanish youth and young adults. Percept Mot Skills. 2014;118(1):247–60. doi: 10.2466/10.06.PMS.118k16w1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref007] 7.Hallal P, Andersen L, Bull F, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref008] 8.National Center for Health Statistics. Participation in leisure-time aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities that meet the federal 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans among adults aged 18 and over by selected characteristics: United States selected years 1998–2017. National Center for Health Statistics; 2018. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref009] 9.Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11(4):227–68. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref010] 10.Deci EL, Ryan RM, editors. Handbook of self-determination research. University Rochester Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref011] 11.Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2020;61:101860. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref012] 12.Behzadnia B, Mohammadzadeh H, Ahmadi M. Autonomy-supportive behaviors promote autonomous motivation, knowledge structures, motor skills learning and performance in physical education. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(6):1692–705. doi: 10.1007/s12144-017-9727-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref013] 13.Corella C, Abarca-Sos A, Gallardo LO, Martín-Albo J, Zaragoza J. Longitudinal study of physical activity in college students: Testing self-determination theory based on stages of change. Curr Psychol. 2022;41(12):9053–62. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01269-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref014] 14.Fletcher J. Applying self-determination theory to college students’ physical-activity behavior: understanding the motivators for physical (in) activity. Commun Stud. 2016;67(5):489–508. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref015] 15.Quartiroli A, Maeda H. The Effects of a Lifetime Physical Fitness (LPF) Course on College Students’ Health Behaviors. Int J Exerc Sci. 2016;9(2):136–48. doi: 10.70252/LRMB1982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref016] 16.Sylvester BD, Standage M, McEwan D, Wolf SA, Lubans DR, Eather N, et al. Variety support and exercise adherence behavior: experimental and mediating effects. J Behav Med. 2016;39(2):214–24. doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9688-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref017] 17.Sylvester B, Curran T, Standage M, Sabiston C, Beauchamp M. Predicting exercise motivation and exercise behavior: a moderated mediation model testing the interaction between perceived exercise variety and basic psychological needs satisfaction. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2018;36:50–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref018] 18.Barkley JE, Ryan EJ, Bellar D, Bliss MV, Roemmich JN. The variety of exercise equipment and physical activity participation in children. J Sport Behav. 2011;34(2):137. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref019] 19.Dimmock J, Jackson B, Podlog L, Magaraggia C. The effect of variety expectations on interest, enjoyment, and locus of causality in exercise. Motiv Emot. 2013;37(1):146–53. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9294-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref020] 20.Glaros NM, Janelle CM. Varying the mode of cardiovascular exercise to increase adherence. J Sport Behav. 2001;24(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref021] 21.Juvancic-Heltzel JA, Glickman EL, Barkley JE. The effect of variety on physical activity: a cross-sectional study. J Strength Cond Res. 2013;27(1):244–51. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182518010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref022] 22.Zhao X, Wu X, Wang J. The impact of exercise variety on satisfaction and motivation. Front Psychol. 2020;11:502173. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref023] 23.Chang YK, Chang CH, Hung TM. Exercise variety and cognitive benefits: a randomized controlled trial. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;53:101837. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref024] 24.Michael SL, Coffield E, Lee SM, Fulton JE. Variety, Enjoyment, and Physical Activity Participation Among High School Students. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):223–30. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0551 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref025] 25.Abós Á, García-González L, Aibar A, Sevil-Serrano J. Towards a better understanding of the role of perceived task variety in physical education: A self-determination theory approach. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;56:101988. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref026] 26.Brooke HL, Corder K, Griffin SJ, Ekelund U, van Sluijs EMF. More of the same or a change of scenery: an observational study of variety and frequency of physical activity in British children. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:761. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-761 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref027] 27.Wolff W, Bieleke M, Stähler J, Schüler J. Too bored for sports? Adaptive and less-adaptive latent personality profiles for exercise behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;53:101851. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref028] 28.Ferreira Silva RM, Mendonça CR, Azevedo VD, Raoof Memon A, Noll PRES, Noll M. Barriers to high school and university students’ physical activity: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0265913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref029] 29.Iannaccone A, Fusco A, Jaime S, Baldassano S, Cooper J, Proia P. Stay home, stay active with Superjump®: a home-based activity to prevent sedentary lifestyle during COVID-19 outbreak. Sustainability. 2020;12(23):10135. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref030] 30.Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, et al. The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(4):389–98. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref031] 31.Liu S-H, Eaton CB, Driban JB, McAlindon TE, Lapane KL. Comparison of self-report and objective measures of physical activity in US adults with osteoarthritis. Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(10):1355–64. doi: 10.1007/s00296-016-3537-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref032] 32.Delextrat AA, Warner S, Graham S, Neupert E. An 8-Week Exercise Intervention Based on Zumba Improves Aerobic Fitness and Psychological Well-Being in Healthy Women. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(2):131–9. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref033] 33.Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–7. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref034] 34.Eldridge S, Chan C, Campbell M, Bond C, Hopewell S, Thabane L. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref035] 35.Vanhelst J, Béghin L, Duhamel A, Bergman P, Sjöström M, Gottrand F. Comparison of uniaxial and triaxial accelerometry in the assessment of physical activity among adolescents under free-living conditions: the HELENA study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-26 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref036] 36.Welk GJ, Schaben JA, Morrow JR Jr. Reliability of accelerometry-based activity monitors: a generalizability study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36(9):1637–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref037] 37.Prescott S, Traynor JP, Shilliday I, Zanotto T, Rush R, Mercer TH. Minimum accelerometer wear-time for reliable estimates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour of people receiving haemodialysis. BMC Nephrol. 2020;21(1):230. doi: 10.1186/s12882-020-01877-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref038] 38.Sallis JF, Haskell WL, Wood PD, Fortmann SP, Rogers T, Blair SN, et al. Physical activity assessment methodology in the Five-City Project. Am J Epidemiol. 1985;121(1):91–106. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113987 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref039] 39.Hayden-Wade HA, Coleman KJ, Sallis JF, Armstrong C. Validation of the telephone and in-person interview versions of the 7-day PAR. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(5):801–9. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000064941.43869.4E [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref040] 40.Markland D, Tobin V. A modification to the behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2004;26(2):191–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref041] 41.Ryan RM, Fredrickson FM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM. Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. Int J Sport Psychol. 1997;28(4):335–54. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref042] 42.Battistelli A, Montani F, Guicciardi M, Bertinato L. Regulation of exercise behaviour and motives for physical activities: The Italian validation of BREQ and MPAM-R questionnaires. Psychologie Française. 2016;61(4):333–48. doi: 10.1016/j.psfr.2014.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref043] 43.Wilson PM, Rogers WT, Rodgers WM, Wild TC. The Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2006;28(3):231–51. doi: 10.1123/jsep.28.3.231 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref044] 44.Zumbo BD, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C. Ordinal Versions of Coefficients Alpha and Theta for Likert Rating Scales. J Mod App Stat Meth. 2007;6(1):21–9. doi: 10.22237/jmasm/1177992180 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref045] 45.Kendzierski D, DeCarlo K. Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation studies. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1991;13(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref046] 46.Sylvester BD, Standage M, Ark TK, Sweet SN, Crocker PR, Zumbo BD, et al. Is variety a spice of (an active) life?: perceived variety, exercise behavior, and the mediating role of autonomous motivation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2014;36(5):516–27. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2014-0102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref047] 47.Gauvin L, Rejeski WJ. The Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory: Development and Initial Validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1993;15(4):403–23. doi: 10.1123/jsep.15.4.403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref048] 48.Kroll T, Kehn M, Ho P-S, Groah S. The SCI Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES): development and psychometric properties. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref049] 49.Mendoza-Vasconez AS, Marquez B, Benitez TJ, Marcus BH. Psychometrics of the self-efficacy for physical activity scale among a Latina women sample. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1097. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5998-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref050] 50.Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not What, but How One Feels: The Measurement of Affect during Exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 1989;11(3):304–17. doi: 10.1123/jsep.11.3.304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref051] 51.Pritschet L, Powell D, Horne Z. Marginally Significant Effects as Evidence for Hypotheses: Changing Attitudes Over Four Decades. Psychol Sci. 2016;27(7):1036–42. doi: 10.1177/0956797616645672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref052] 52.Chiang S-L, Shen C-L, Chen L-C, Lo Y-P, Lin C-H, Lin C-H. Effectiveness of a Home-Based Telehealth Exercise Training Program for Patients With Cardiometabolic Multimorbidity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;35(5):491–501. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000693 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref053] 53.Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref054] 54.Lewis BA, Schuver K. Primary research dimensions of exercise psychology. In Anshel MH, Petruzzello SJ, Labbé EE, editors. APA handbook of sport and exercise psychology: Exercise psychology. American Psychological Association; 2019. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref055] 55.Hart TL, Swartz AM, Cashin SE, Strath SJ. How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults?. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:62. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-62 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref056] 56.Trost SG, Mciver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11):S531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref057] 57.Dregney TM, Thul CM, Linde JA, Lewis BA. Affective responses to high intensity interval training relative to moderate intensity continuous training. Phys Act Health. 2023;7(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0323195.ref058] 58.Whitfield GP, Hyde ET, Carlson SA. Participation in leisure-time aerobic physical activity among adults, national health interview survey, 1998–2018. J Phys Act Health. 2021;18(S1):S25-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The impact of physical activity variety on physical activity participation

Tyler M Dregney

Chelsey Thul

Jennifer A Linde

Beth A Lewis

Roles

Abstract

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Methods

Overview of study

Participants

Procedures

Table 1. Timeline and content of counseling sessions.

Variety condition.

Consistency condition.

Measures

Primary aim: Feasibility.

Secondary dependent variables: PA participation and psychosocial variables.

Data analysis

Results

Table 2. Participant demographics by condition.

Feasibility

Fig 1. Variety flow chart.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for intervention adherence and satisfaction by conditions.

PA

Psychosocial variables

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 0

Henri Tilga

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Henri Tilga

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Henri Tilga

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Henri Tilga

Roles

Acceptance letter

Henri Tilga

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases