Determinants of weekly sitting time: construct validation of an initial COM-B model and comparison of its predictive validity with the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In relation to sitting behaviour, to investigate which theoretical domains best formed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation constructs of the COM-B, and compare the predictive validity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), taking habit strength into consideration. DESIGN: Using a prospective design, 186 adults completed measures capturing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework for the three COM-B constructs, and habit strength, which were examined using a formative measurement model. Predictive validity was then compared to the TPB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported sitting behaviour. RESULTS: Self-monitoring (behavioural regulation domain) formed Capability; subjective norm (social influences domain) formed Opportunity; intention (intentions domain), positive affect (emotion domain), and perceived behavioural control (beliefs about capabilities domain), formed Motivation. The COM-B strongly predicted sitting behaviour (27% variance explained), with Capability, Opportunity, and habit strength as key drivers. The TPB explained a large amount of variance (23%) in sitting behaviour, with intention and habit strength as key drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioural regulation domain of Capability, the social influences domain of Opportunity, and habit strength were important drivers of sitting behaviour, with comparable variance predicted in the COM-B and TPB. Future research should consider this approach to conceptualise the COM-B for specific populations and behaviours.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.