Notes on the stability of the factor structure of leisure meanings

Abstract

This paper reports data concerning the stability of the factor structure of leisure meanings in the same recreational activity in two different geographic settings. Leisure meanings were conceptualized as a function of human needs and motivation. Data were obtained through surveys of river floaters in Dinosaur National Monument and Big Bend National Park. Summary findings include:(1) Recreationists did not tend to make fine distinctions between motive constructs; (2) some motivational dimensions were stable across the two study areas while others were not; (3) stability of motives appeared to be related to the specificity of the constructs involved, their meanings to recreationists, the importance recreationists attributed to the motives, and to situational differences of the two study areas; (4) factor structures in this study tend to support results of other studies using hierarchical clustering procedures to identify the structure of recreational motives.

The Benefits of Adult Piano Study as Self-Reported by Selected Adult Piano Students

“…Many of these domains included sub-domains, which detailed more specific components of the domain. Driver, Tinsley, et al (1991) Roggenbuck, and Schreyer (1981) documented the stability of the REP scales over time, noting that the stability was good for average scale scores when computed at different points in time across subjects.…”

“…Driver, Tinsley et al reported that the scales' content validity had been demonstrated by the scores of empirical studies using the scales, as well as the many efforts at refinement undertaken when the scales were developed. In addition, Graefe et al (1981) stated that the scales' content validity had been upheld by the many scientists who have used the scales in their research. Rosenthal, Driver, and Waldman (1982) examined the construct validity of eight of the REP scales using a multitrait-multimethod analysis, reporting that construct validity could be verified for seven of the eight REP scales.…”

Motives for recreational river floating: Relative consistency across settings

“…In other studies, the results have not been so clear. Rather, a few writers suggest that some motives may be linked to environmental-setting preferences while others are not (Haas, 1979;Ballman, 1980;Graefe et al, 1981). But a provocative study of winter recreationists (McLaughlin and Paradice, 1980) forces us to consider the possibility that environmental preferences may be more directly linked to activity style than to motive structure.…”

“…The same recreation activity, carried out in different ROSsetting classes, is likely to produce different experiences Clark and Stankey, 1979;Buist and Hoots, 1982), and, given a constant motive profile, the nature and degree of satisfaction obtained are expected to vary across ROS-setting classes (Graefe et al, 1981). The ROS approach further implies that variation in the functional properties of outdoor recreation settings is strongly linked to variation along the primitive-urban continuum.…”

Experience‐based setting management: Implications for market segmentation of hunters

“…Brown & Haas, 1980;Buchanan, 1983;Driver & Knopf, 1977;Graefe, Ditton, Roggenbuck, & Schreyer, 1981;Hautaluoma & Brown, 1978;Hautaluoma, Brown, & Battle, 1982). A second wave of studies focused attention on the assumption that a systematic link exists between recreation settings and Tecreation experiences (Knopf, Peterson, & Leatherberry, 1983;Manfredo et al, 1983;Schreyer, Knopf, & Williams, 1984;Williams & Knopf, 1985).…”