Ok between June and August 2013. A total of 688 began the survey of which 457 were completed. A EPZ004777 supplier further 10 were excluded because the respondents indicated they had never danced in the listed genres (i.e., salsa, Latin or ballroom) before. This resulted in 447 completed responses. Participants could only begin the questionnaire after providing informed consent to participate in the study. Identifying data were not collected to ensure anonymity. The study s11606-015-3271-0 protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the E v Lor d University.MeasuresDance Motivation Inventory (DMI). The development of the 51-item list of dance motives was carried out over a number of stages. First, following a systematic literature review, two independent experts collected all statements that referred to the motivational basis of sport dance or exercise. This first stage identified 20 statements. At the same time, 11 dancers of varying experience were asked to list as many reasons and motives for dancing as possible. They were asked to complete the following sentence: “I dance because. . .” Overall, 74 motives were collected from these 11 individuals. In the next stage, the two lists of motives were merged, and duplicates and ambiguous items were removed. Any disagreement between the two experts was resolved by a third expert. fpsyg.2014.00822 Following this stage, a list of 51 items of possible motives for dance remained. Items of the DMI were evaluated by the study participants on a five-point scale (1 = I strongly disagree; 5 = I strongly agree). Dance experience and intensity. Dance experience (or persistence) [20] was defined as the number of years that the participant had been actively involved in dancing, while intensity was operationalized as the number of hours spent in training and/or in a formal dance event in an average week. Statistical Analysis. Statistical analysis comprised an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with robust maximum-likelihood estimation (MLR) in MPlus 6.12 [32]. The goodness of fit was assessed by the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90 confidence interval (CI), and p value SIS3 site larger than 0.05 for test of close fit (Cfit>.05). Non-significant probability (Cfit) values are viewed as indicators of good model fit [33]. Additionally the 2 test and its p value, and the comparative fit index (CFI) were evaluated. The 2 test should be nonsignificant (p >. 05) for a close fit. However, this index is almost always significant in the case of large sample sizes. Therefore CFI as an alternative index of fit was also considered. Values greater than. 90 indicate an acceptable fit [34]. For the further development of the scale, those items were kept that loaded .50 on only one factor, and loaded <.30 on any other factor. The remaining statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS17 for Windows. The summary of items divided by the number of items the participant answered comprised the factors as scales. Pearson product-moment correlations were applied to assess associations between factors, and independent sample t-tests were used to assess differences between males and females. Linear regression analysis was used to identify the best motivational predictors of dance experience and intensity outcomes. Differences between motivational factors were assessed using paired t-tests. In order to perform a linear regression, multicollinearity was verified. As a rule of thumb, a VIF value greater than 4 would indicate inflated standard erro.Ok between June and August 2013. A total of 688 began the survey of which 457 were completed. A further 10 were excluded because the respondents indicated they had never danced in the listed genres (i.e., salsa, Latin or ballroom) before. This resulted in 447 completed responses. Participants could only begin the questionnaire after providing informed consent to participate in the study. Identifying data were not collected to ensure anonymity. The study s11606-015-3271-0 protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the E v Lor d University.MeasuresDance Motivation Inventory (DMI). The development of the 51-item list of dance motives was carried out over a number of stages. First, following a systematic literature review, two independent experts collected all statements that referred to the motivational basis of sport dance or exercise. This first stage identified 20 statements. At the same time, 11 dancers of varying experience were asked to list as many reasons and motives for dancing as possible. They were asked to complete the following sentence: “I dance because. . .” Overall, 74 motives were collected from these 11 individuals. In the next stage, the two lists of motives were merged, and duplicates and ambiguous items were removed. Any disagreement between the two experts was resolved by a third expert. fpsyg.2014.00822 Following this stage, a list of 51 items of possible motives for dance remained. Items of the DMI were evaluated by the study participants on a five-point scale (1 = I strongly disagree; 5 = I strongly agree). Dance experience and intensity. Dance experience (or persistence) [20] was defined as the number of years that the participant had been actively involved in dancing, while intensity was operationalized as the number of hours spent in training and/or in a formal dance event in an average week. Statistical Analysis. Statistical analysis comprised an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with robust maximum-likelihood estimation (MLR) in MPlus 6.12 [32]. The goodness of fit was assessed by the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90 confidence interval (CI), and p value larger than 0.05 for test of close fit (Cfit>.05). Non-significant probability (Cfit) values are viewed as indicators of good model fit [33]. Additionally the 2 test and its p value, and the comparative fit index (CFI) were evaluated. The 2 test should be nonsignificant (p >. 05) for a close fit. However, this index is almost always significant in the case of large sample sizes. Therefore CFI as an alternative index of fit was also considered. Values greater than. 90 indicate an acceptable fit [34]. For the further development of the scale, those items were kept that loaded .50 on only one factor, and loaded <.30 on any other factor. The remaining statistical analyses were carried out with SPSS17 for Windows. The summary of items divided by the number of items the participant answered comprised the factors as scales. Pearson product-moment correlations were applied to assess associations between factors, and independent sample t-tests were used to assess differences between males and females. Linear regression analysis was used to identify the best motivational predictors of dance experience and intensity outcomes. Differences between motivational factors were assessed using paired t-tests. In order to perform a linear regression, multicollinearity was verified. As a rule of thumb, a VIF value greater than 4 would indicate inflated standard erro.
