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.

Keywords:

• COM-B
• Theory of Planned Behaviour: sitting
• sedentary behaviour
• Theoretical Domains Framework
• habit

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).