| Citation | Purpose | Design | Key Variables | Instruments | Study Populations | Results |
| Guedes et al. (2009), Brazil | To describe the everyday physical activity habits of students and analyze the practice of physical activity and its determinants | Cross-sectional design | Previous behaviors and personal factors, and physical activities | Interviews and physical examination, profile of physical activity (gender, age range, time spent daily on sedentary activities, and body mass index (BMI)) | 79 children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years in a public school in Brazil | The first component “previous behaviors and personal factors” of Pender’s theoretical model of health promotion can be related with the daily routine of children and adolescents, focusing on physical activities |
| Taymoori et al. (2010), Iran | To evaluate the HPM as a means to predict physical activity (PA) | Cross-sectional design | Physical activity and psychosocial variables, Competing demands | Physical activity and psychosocial variables―a modified version of the child/adolescent activity log (CAAL; Garcia, et al., 1995, 1997), Competing demands―Pender’s scale | 515 boys from 100 junior high and high schools in Iran | HPMHPM accounted for 37% of the variance in Physical Activity (PA) but did not represent a good data fit. There were significant pathways between PA and self-efficacy, enjoyment, and PA modeling respectively (Β = 0.25, P < 0.001), (B = 0.22, P < 0.01), and (B = −0.13, P < 0.05). A revised model that included the indirect effects of competing demands explained 34% of the variance in PA and represented a good data fit. In the revised model, self-efficacy, commitment to planning, and enjoyment were associated with PA; additionally, competing demands influence PA |