Disentangling substance from rhetoric: a rebuttal to Ekkekakis and Petruzzello (2001) |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Social and Preventive Medicine and GRIS (Interdisiplinary Research Group on Health), Université de Montréal, PO Box 6128, Downtown Station, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3C 3J7;2. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA;1. Computer Science Department, Xiamen University, P.R.China;2. The State Key Lab of Complex Systems and Intelligence Science, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.R. China;3. Academic Center for Computing and Media Studies, Kyoto University, Japan;4. School of Information Science and Technology, Northwest University, P.R.China;1. Department of Radiology, Winthrop-University Hospital, 259 First Street 11501, Mineola, NY;2. College of Osteopathic Medicine, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY;3. Department of Radiology, Division of Nuclear Medicine, New York, NY;4. Department of Radiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO;1. Department of Special Education and Counselling, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong;2. Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong;1. Research and Conservation, Copenhagen Zoo, Roskildevej 38, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark;2. Behavioural Ecology Group, Section for Ecology & Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark;3. Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Denmark;1. University of Lorraine, URAFPA. USC INRA 340. F-54506 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex 09, France;2. CNRS (National Centre for Scientific Research), F-54500 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, Cedex 09, France;1. Saint Joseph’s University, Department of Psychology, 5600 City Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19131, USA;2. Saint Joseph’s University, Department of Biology, 5600 City Ave., Philadelphia, PA, 19131, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | Background and purpose: Ekkekakis and Petruzzello (Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2 (2001) 1–26) have presented an inaccurate critique of the Exercise-Induced Feeling Inventory (EFI; Gauvin and Rejeski (J. Sport Exercise Psychol. 15 (1993) 403)), a measurement instrument that we developed several years ago. In the current paper, we formulate a threefold rebuttal to the arguments advanced by Ekkekakis and Petruzzello.Methods: First, we identify selected misinterpretations and misconceptions in the critique that, if ignored, could jeopardise future advancements in this area. Next, we review extant research on the EFI and highlight what has been learned from 13 empirical studies with this measure over the past eight years. Finally, we outline a research agenda for overcoming what we perceive to be limitations of the EFI and for advancing knowledge on feeling state outcomes associated with involvement in physical activity.Conclusions: Much of the critique by Ekkekakis and Petruzzello is rhetoric rather than substance. The EFI has been useful in stimulating new research and thinking about the role of physical activity in ameliorating mental health and health-related quality of life. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
