com where they viewed the “explanation of research study” document. To qualify for the study, participants were asked if they obtained the international student visa (F1 visa) and were originally from Mainland China. After reading that document those who wanted to continue were directed to the actual survey. An identification number was assigned to each participant to maintain anonymity and confidentially. Participants who decided not to continue could quit the survey at anytime. Data was collected between June and August 2011. Since

all of the scales were 5-point scales, item-mean scores, instead of the item total scores, were calculated as the final score for each scale to make the score of each scale comparable. The range of each scale score was from 1 to 5. Data analysis

comprised two stages: (1) identification of the factors selleck that predicted PA directly, (2) exploration PI3K Inhibitor Library datasheet of the mediation effect of the predictors on PA. Binominal nested regression modeling and mediation analysis were completed in STATA 12.0 (College Station, TX, USA), with α set at p < 0.05 for all analyses. Among those who were retained for analyses (n = 649), 504 participants answered every single question leaving 145 participants (22.3%) missing at least one value. After examining the patterns of missing data, the data appeared to be missing at random (MAR). That is, missing values did not seem to be dependent on other variables. Since using list wise deletion for MAR may significantly reduce the sample size and may cause a biased estimation, the multiple imputation method was used. 30 On average participants were 27.08 ± 4.59 years of age, had a BMI of 21.96 ± 4.10 (range 17.0–32.5), aminophylline and had spent 36.53 ± 33.86 months in the U.S. Internal consistencies of the scales (Cronbach’s α values) ranged from 0.73 to 0.94 ( Table 1). From Table 2, the imputed means for each scale were close to the raw means, which provided additional evidence for the imputation approach employed. Overall, the means ranged from 2.59 to 4.19, with relatively low average scores on self-efficacy to overcome exercise barriers, but relatively high scores on positive exercise

attitude and exercise enjoyment. Though the LTEQ has been successfully used in multiple other studies, it was not used as a primary outcome variable in the current study for several reasons. First, the distribution of scores was very skewed even after imputation (i.e., skewness = 3.82 and kurtosis = 19.10). Second, the standard deviation was larger than the total mean score (i.e., mean = 49.68, SD = 69.87). Although we tried dropping outliers and combining moderate and vigorous scores, neither approach resolved the issues we encountered with this measure in this sample. Therefore, we used the binary variable of MPAR and “does not meet MPAR” as the dependent measure of PA instead. As shown in Table 2, we were not able to normalize the distribution using transformation analysis.