phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | perceived variety in exercise and exercise-related well-being— “The primary purpose of this study was to examine whether perceived variety in exercise predicts unique variance in exercise-related well-being over time, in addition to that explained by the three basic psychological needs embedded within BPNT (i.e., competence, relatedness, and autonomy).” | |
| claim-type | prediction— “Perceived variety in exercise was found to prospectively predict unique variance in indices of exercise-related well-being, in addition to that explained by psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Using a prospective observational design, consenting participants completed the same online questionnaire (which included a battery of instruments and took approximately 15 minutes) at two time points, six weeks apart.” | |
| mechanism | the instrument is built in three declared steps - item development, focus groups, and expert review - used to develop AND refine the items rather than only to produce them— “We used a three-step process including item development, focus groups, and expert review to develop and refine items that assess perceptions of experiencing variety in exercise.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | the focus groups use a modified retrospective think-aloud protocol, whose stated purpose is to understand how members of the target population INTERPRET and respond to the items— “A modified ‘retrospective think-aloud’ protocol (Oremus, Cosby, & Wolfson, 2005; Willis, 2005) was used in the focus groups in order to better understand how members of the target population interpret and respond to items.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the refinement has a STOPPING RULE rather than a fixed number of rounds: transcripts are coded by constant comparison for places where a participant raised concern with an item, and the cycle repeats after each group until no new suggestions emerge— “We used a constant comparison approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to identify and code sentences and phrases in which participants raised concern with one or more items. The analysis focused on problematic and alternative interpretations of items. This iterative process was repeated following each focus group and revisions were made to the… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | latent variable regression is chosen over multiple regression for a stated reason: multiple regression assumes the variables are measured without error, and the authors say that assumption would produce biased estimates here— “For this study, LVR analysis is preferable to techniques such as multiple regression analysis, because it is not based on the assumption that measurement of the variables is error-free and therefore we avoid potentially producing biased estimates” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | the chi-square test is deliberately not relied on alone, because a non-significant chi-square is called unrealistic, so supplementary indices are examined too - with separate numerical bands DESIGNATED for good fit and for excellent fit— “The χ2 test was considered for the model, however a non-significant χ2 statistic is considered unrealistic (Barrett, 2007) so supplementary fit indices were also examined. To assess the model we compared the χ2 goodness of fit indices, comparative fit indices (CFI), Tucker-Lewis indices (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation… | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | discriminant validity is given a numerical criterion rather than an impression: the average variance extracted for a construct must exceed the SQUARED CORRELATION between it and any other construct, alongside stated floors for loadings and composite reliability— “According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009) the factor loadings should be .50 or greater, the CR values should be .70 or greater, and Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommend that AVE values should exceed the squared correlation between that and any other construct.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | relative importance among predictors is decided by an index with a cut-off DERIVED from the number of predictors rather than chosen - one over twice the predictor count, which in this analysis makes the threshold 0.13— “An index score less than 1/ (2 × number of predictor variables) classifies the variable as relatively unimportant (Thomas, 1992). The cut-off value was 0.13 (i.e., 13%) for the LVR analyses, indicating that any RPI value below this is considered unimportant (Thomas, 1992).” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | THE KEY TEST IS BUILT AS A COMPETING MODEL, NOT A CORRELATION: a three-factor structure is fitted specifically to see whether the new construct is empirically synonymous with one of the three established needs, and the authors state in advance what result would count against their own claim— “A three factor model was examined to test the extent to which variety might be empirically synonymous (i.e., lacks discriminant validity) with one or more of the three psychological needs conceptualized within BPNT. Should empirical evidence suggest that perceived variety in exercise is highly correlated with, and undistinguishable from, one… | mechanisms[7] |
| replicates | Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012), conclusion that perceptions of variety directly predict well-being— “The current findings are consistent with Sheldon and Lyubomirsky’s (2012) conclusions that perceptions of variety directly predict indices of well-being.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012)— “We extended their work by demonstrating that in the context of exercise, perceived variety complements the three psychological needs incorporated within BPNT in the prediction of exercise-related well-being.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Kahn and Ratner (2005) and Sheldon and Lyubomirsky (2012), definition of variety— “We defined variety as the pursuit and experience of diverse activities, behaviors, and opportunities in one’s social milieu (cf. Kahn & Ratner, 2005; Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2012).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | variety - the general stipulated definition: the pursuit and experience of diverse activities, behaviours and opportunities in one's social milieu— “We defined variety as the pursuit and experience of diverse activities, behaviors, and opportunities in one’s social milieu” | senses[0] |
| sense | variety - the narrower sense used in this study, which explicitly admits simple, mundane and conventional experiences and so is not sensation-seeking— “and/or alternating familiar experiences, which could also be simple, mundane, and conventional.” | senses[1] |
| sense | `felt variety` / `variety support` - TWO TERMS COINED IN ONE SENTENCE TO PREVENT A CONFLATION, WITH THE REASON STATED. `For the sake of conceptual clarity it is important to distinguish between the psychological experience of variety (i.e., felt variety), and the provisions that allow variety to happen (i.e., variety support).` The pre-existing literature had one word, `variety`, doing both jobs - an experience and an affordance - and the split is announced as a methodological requirement rather than discovered. The paper then measures only the first.— “it is important to distinguish between the psychological experience of variety (i.e., felt variety), and the provisions that allow variety to happen (i.e., variety support).” | senses[2] |
| sense | `competence` / `relatedness` / `autonomy` - THREE NEEDS DEFINED BY A SINGLE `refers to` EACH, AND ALL THREE ARE ATTRIBUTED. Every definition ends in a citation to Deci & Ryan; the paper is importing a vocabulary intact rather than building one, which is the opposite move to `felt variety` two pages earlier. The same article both borrows a settled partition and coins a new one, and the writing does not mark the difference.— “Competence refers to an individual’s perception of their capability to effectively deal with challenges in their social environment (Deci & Ryan, 2002; White, 1959). Relatedness refers to positive interactions with others, and feelings of connectedness by caring for and being cared for by other people (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci… | senses[3] |
| control | the trimmed item pool was reviewed by three people with expertise in instrument development and in the exercise domain — held — rules out that the items measure something other than the construct they are named for - expert content review is the check on that before any data is collected | controls[0] |
| audit | perceived variety —distinct-from→ psychological needs satisfaction — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the paper EXAMINED 'the extent to which' perceived variety is distinct; stated as a question. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | perceived variety —distinct-from→ psychological needs satisfaction — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| note | felt variety —distinct-from→ variety support — 'distinguish between' is the differentiation cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested rather than merely accepted. Weight 1.0 - the paper does not hedge the distinction, it requires it. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any causal reading: EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS WILL BE NECESSARY IN FUTURE RESEARCH TO EXAMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH CHANGES ... RELATES TO CHANGES IN EXERCISE-RELATED WELL-BEING Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the level at which the finding holds: assessments of perceived variety were operationalised AT THE CONTEXTUAL LEVEL only Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — acute and global claims: THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY DO NOT PROV[ide evidence] about episodic effects or life-level outcomes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the factor structure itself: THE USE OF THE SAME SAMPLE TO VERIFY THE FACTOR STRUCTURE (ALBEIT AT DIFFERENT TIME POINTS) AND RESULTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED WITH CAUTION Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — perceived variety as an established separate need: the paper examines whether it is distinct from or subsumed by competence, relatedness and autonomy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — comparisons with other needs-satisfaction studies: the paper notes the construct has at times been operationalised as a single latent variable, and tests a one-factor model for that reason Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| replication | replicated | |
| limitation | The design is non-experimental, so no causal inference is licensed; experiments are needed. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Variety was assessed only at the contextual level. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The results say nothing about acute/episodic effects of perceived variety or about global life-level effects. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The factor structure was verified on the same sample used to derive it, only at a different time point. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Whether the new construct is distinct from the three established needs, or subsumed by them, was an open question this study set out to examine rather than assume. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The construct it is measured alongside has been operationalised inconsistently in the literature, sometimes as a single latent variable. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Perceived variety together with competence, relatedness and autonomy measured at Time 1 explained 37.2% of the variance in exercise-related positive affect six weeks later. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The same four predictors explained 33.1% of the variance in exercise-related subjective vitality. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | For exercise-related negative affect, autonomy was the only statistically significant predictor; perceived variety did not predict it. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | A four-factor structure that keeps perceived variety separate from competence, relatedness and autonomy fitted the data better than one-factor or three-factor structures. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | None of the five perceived-variety items cross-loaded onto the competence, relatedness or autonomy subscales at the |0.30| threshold. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Perceived variety in exercise is empirically distinct from, and not subsumed by, perceived competence, relatedness and autonomy. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | A supplementary test found no significant curvilinear relationship between perceived variety and positive affect, negative affect or subjective vitality. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | The authors state that the observational design prevents any causal claim about variety and well-being. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | N = 507 — community adults who completed the baseline survey Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | six weeks — interval between the two identical online questionnaire administrations Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 13.5% — variance in exercise-related negative affect explained by variety plus the three needs Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 19.76% — share of the explained variance in positive affect attributable to perceived variety (Relative Pratt Index) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 27.02% — share of the explained variance in subjective vitality attributable to perceived variety, against 37.70% for competence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | χ2 (758) = 1746.98, p < .001, CFI = .974, TLI = .972 — fit statistics for the latent variable regression model Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | .97 — ordinal composite reliability of the perceived variety scores Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| variable | exercise-related positive affect (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | exercise-related subjective vitality (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | perceived variety (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | competence (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | relatedness (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| variable | autonomy (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| definition | variety Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | felt variety Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | composite reliability Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | Relative Pratt Index Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | perceived variety Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | psychological needs satisfaction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | felt variety — not defined in this paper's own words; the PERSON'S EXPERIENCE of variety - coined here in a parenthesis, in the same sentence that coins its counterpart, specifically to stop the two being measured as one thing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | variety support — not defined in this paper's own words; the ENVIRONMENT'S PROVISION of variety - what makes variety available, as against what is experienced Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | Competence — not defined in this paper's own words; perceived capability to deal effectively with challenges; the first of the three basic needs, each given a one-clause definition in the same passage Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | Relatedness — not defined in this paper's own words; positive interactions and felt connectedness through caring and being cared for Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| regression β | as written: latent variable regression (LVR) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| exploratory factor analysis | as written: EFA analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| confirmatory factor analysis | as written: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| weighted least squares estimation WLSMV | as written: weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| chi-squared χ2 | as written: χ2 test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| model fit indices (RMSEA, CFI, TLI) RMSEA | as written: root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| composite reliability CR | as written: composite reliability and average variance extracted Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| average variance extracted AVE | as written: average variance extracted (AVE) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| relative importance index RPI | as written: Pratt Index (RPI; Thomas, Hughes & Zumbo, 1998) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| oblique factor rotation | as written: Geomin rotation (to produce an oblique solution Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824