The Effects of a 12-Week Home-Based Circuit Training Program on Quality of Life, Anger Expression, and Mental Toughness in Non-Working Married Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

General Information

Title

RCT ID

AEARCTR-0018151

Initial registration date

March 16, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published

March 23, 2026, 7:18 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

Country

Turkey

Region

GÜMÜŞHANE

Primary Investigator

Name

coşkun yılmaz

Affiliation

ev

Contact Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status

Completed

Start date

2025-09-05

End date

2025-12-30

Keywords

Education, Gender

Additional Keywords

Home-Based Circuit Training, Quality of Life, Mental Toughness, State-Trait Anger-Anger Style, Non-Working Married Women

JEL code(s)

Secondary IDs

Prior work

This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.

Abstract

The study was designed as a parallel-group, two-arm RCT conducted in strict accordance with the CONSORT 2025 declaration (Hopewell et al., 2025). A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used in the study. While participants in the Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT) structured exercise program, the Control Group (CG) was asked to maintain their sedentary lifestyles and daily routines without any additional physical activity. A three-visit protocol was used for data collection in the study. In the first visit, participants were given full information about the study protocol. An exercise visit was also included for the participants. The second visit was used for pre-testing. After the completion of the twelve-week period, the third visit was used for post-test data collection (Figure 1).
To minimize exogenous variables, all physiological measurements and training sessions were performed under standardized environmental conditions (ambient temperature: 22–24 °C; relative humidity: 45–55%) and supervised by the same research team to ensure consistency. To reduce potential bias, all psychometric scales were self-administered by participants in a quiet, standardized classroom setting. These assessments were supervised by a blinded investigator who provided standardized instructions without influencing participant responses, thus ensuring the integrity of the data collection process.

External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation

yılmaz, coşkun. 2026. "The Effects of a 12-Week Home-Based Circuit Training Program on Quality of Life, Anger Expression, and Mental Toughness in Non-Working Married Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial." AEA RCT Registry. March 23. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18151-1.0

Sponsors & Partners

Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)

The study was designed as a parallel-group, two-arm RCT conducted in strict accordance with the CONSORT 2025 declaration (Hopewell et al., 2025). A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used in the study. While participants in the Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT) structured exercise program, the Control Group (CG) was asked to maintain their sedentary lifestyles and daily routines without any additional physical activity. A three-visit protocol was used for data collection in the study. In the first visit, participants were given full information about the study protocol. An exercise visit was also included for the participants. The second visit was used for pre-testing. After the completion of the twelve-week period, the third visit was used for post-test data collection (Figure 1).
To minimize exogenous variables, all physiological measurements and training sessions were performed under standardized environmental conditions (ambient temperature: 22–24 °C; relative humidity: 45–55%) and supervised by the same research team to ensure consistency. To reduce potential bias, all psychometric scales were self-administered by participants in a quiet, standardized classroom setting. These assessments were supervised by a blinded investigator who provided standardized instructions without influencing participant responses, thus ensuring the integrity of the data collection process.

Intervention (Hidden)

The study was designed as a parallel-group, two-arm RCT conducted in strict accordance with the CONSORT 2025 declaration (Hopewell et al., 2025). A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used in the study. While participants in the Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT) structured exercise program, the Control Group (CG) was asked to maintain their sedentary lifestyles and daily routines without any additional physical activity. A three-visit protocol was used for data collection in the study. In the first visit, participants were given full information about the study protocol. An exercise visit was also included for the participants. The second visit was used for pre-testing. After the completion of the twelve-week period, the third visit was used for post-test data collection (Figure 1).
To minimize exogenous variables, all physiological measurements and training sessions were performed under standardized environmental conditions (ambient temperature: 22–24 °C; relative humidity: 45–55%) and supervised by the same research team to ensure consistency. To reduce potential bias, all psychometric scales were self-administered by participants in a quiet, standardized classroom setting. These assessments were supervised by a blinded investigator who provided standardized instructions without influencing participant responses, thus ensuring the integrity of the data collection process.

Intervention Start Date

2025-09-12

Intervention End Date

2025-12-15

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)

State-Trait Anger-Anger Style Scale

Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Another scale used in the study to measure women's trait anger and anger expression styles was the State-Trait Anger-Anger Expression Style Scale, developed by Spielberger in 1983 and adapted into Turkish by Özer in 1994. The scale consists of 34 items in total; 10 items are for the state anger scale, and 24 items are for the anger style scale.

High scores on the State Anger scale indicate a high level of anger; high scores on the Controlled Anger scale indicate that anger is controllable; high scores on the Anger Externalized scale indicate that anger is easily expressed; and high scores on the Anger Internalized scale indicate that anger is suppressed.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)

Sport Mental Toughness Questionnaire
SF-12 Quality of Life

Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

The Sports Mental Resilience Questionnaire (SMTQ-14), developed by Sheard et al. (2009) to assess the mental resilience levels of athletes, consists of 3 sub-dimensions and 14 items. (Trust (items 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14), Control (items 2, 4, 7, 9) and Continuity (items 3, 8, 10, 12)).
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using the SF-12 Quality of Life, an abbreviated version of the SF-36 developed by Ware et al. (1995). The SF-12 consists of 12 items derived from the eight original dimensions of the SF-36 to evaluate functional status, psychological well-being, and general health perceptions. The Turkish validation and reliability study of the scale was conducted by Soylu and Kütük (2021)

Experimental Design

The study was designed as a parallel-group, two-arm RCT conducted in strict accordance with the CONSORT 2025 declaration (Hopewell et al., 2025). A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used in the study. While participants in the Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT) structured exercise program, the Control Group (CG) was asked to maintain their sedentary lifestyles and daily routines without any additional physical activity. A three-visit protocol was used for data collection in the study. In the first visit, participants were given full information about the study protocol. An exercise visit was also included for the participants. The second visit was used for pre-testing. After the completion of the twelve-week period, the third visit was used for post-test data collection (Figure 1).
To minimize exogenous variables, all physiological measurements and training sessions were performed under standardized environmental conditions (ambient temperature: 22–24 °C; relative humidity: 45–55%) and supervised by the same research team to ensure consistency. To reduce potential bias, all psychometric scales were self-administered by participants in a quiet, standardized classroom setting. These assessments were supervised by a blinded investigator who provided standardized instructions without influencing participant responses, thus ensuring the integrity of the data collection process.

Experimental Design Details

The study was designed as a parallel-group, two-arm RCT conducted in strict accordance with the CONSORT 2025 declaration (Hopewell et al., 2025). A pre-test/post-test experimental design was used in the study. While participants in the Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT) structured exercise program, the Control Group (CG) was asked to maintain their sedentary lifestyles and daily routines without any additional physical activity. A three-visit protocol was used for data collection in the study. In the first visit, participants were given full information about the study protocol. An exercise visit was also included for the participants. The second visit was used for pre-testing. After the completion of the twelve-week period, the third visit was used for post-test data collection (Figure 1).
To minimize exogenous variables, all physiological measurements and training sessions were performed under standardized environmental conditions (ambient temperature: 22–24 °C; relative humidity: 45–55%) and supervised by the same research team to ensure consistency. To reduce potential bias, all psychometric scales were self-administered by participants in a quiet, standardized classroom setting. These assessments were supervised by a blinded investigator who provided standardized instructions without influencing participant responses, thus ensuring the integrity of the data collection process.

Randomization Method

Randomization and Ethics Randomization was performed by an independent, blinded investigator who was not involved in participant assessment or intervention administration. Participants were assigned to groups in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random array (www.randomizer.org). To ensure the confidentiality of group assignments, group assignments were only disclosed after all baseline measures were completed.

Randomization Unit

Randomization and Ethics Randomization was performed by an independent, blinded investigator who was not involved in participant assessment or intervention administration. Participants were assigned to groups in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random array (www.randomizer.org). To ensure the confidentiality of group assignments, group assignments were only disclosed after all baseline measures were completed.

Was the treatment clustered?

No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters

Randomization and Ethics Randomization was performed by an independent, blinded investigator who was not involved in participant assessment or intervention administration. Participants were assigned to groups in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random array (www.randomizer.org). To ensure the confidentiality of group assignments, group assignments were only disclosed after all baseline measures were completed.

Sample size: planned number of observations

Randomization and Ethics Randomization was performed by an independent, blinded investigator who was not involved in participant assessment or intervention administration. Participants were assigned to groups in a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated random array (www.randomizer.org). To ensure the confidentiality of group assignments, group assignments were only disclosed after all baseline measures were completed.

Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms

To ensure rigorous methodological standards, the sample size was predetermined using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.2; Düsseldorf, Germany). A power analysis based on psychological resilience as the primary outcome measure showed that at least 12 participants per group were required to detect statistically significant effects, with an effect size of d = 0.80, an alpha level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.89 (Yıkılmaz et al., 2025). To account for a potential 20% dropout rate, the final sample size was determined to be 30 participants, with 18 assigned to each arm: Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT, n = 15) and Control Group (CG; n = 15). Potential participants (n = 38) were screened for eligibility; eight were excluded from the study due to refusal to participate (n = 1) or failure to meet health-related inclusion criteria (n = 4), personal reasons, or schedule conflicts (3). Although blinding all subjects was not possible due to the nature of the intervention program, a single-blinding approach was applied. Outcome evaluators and statisticians were blinded to group assignments.

Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

To ensure rigorous methodological standards, the sample size was predetermined using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.2; Düsseldorf, Germany). A power analysis based on psychological resilience as the primary outcome measure showed that at least 12 participants per group were required to detect statistically significant effects, with an effect size of d = 0.80, an alpha level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.89 (Yıkılmaz et al., 2025). To account for a potential 20% dropout rate, the final sample size was determined to be 30 participants, with 18 assigned to each arm: Home-Based Circuit Training (HBCT, n = 15) and Control Group (CG; n = 15). Potential participants (n = 38) were screened for eligibility; eight were excluded from the study due to refusal to participate (n = 1) or failure to meet health-related inclusion criteria (n = 4), personal reasons, or schedule conflicts (3). Although blinding all subjects was not possible due to the nature of the intervention program, a single-blinding approach was applied. Outcome evaluators and statisticians were blinded to group assignments.

Supporting Documents and Materials

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name

Ethical approval was granted by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of Hitit University

IRB Approval Date

2025-08-29

IRB Approval Number

2025/0412

Analysis Plan

The Effects of a 12-Week Home-Based Circuit Training Program on Quality of Life, Anger Expression, and Mental Toughness in Non-Working Married Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Pre-Trial

General Information

Locations

Primary Investigator

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Registration Citation

Interventions

Primary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes

Experimental Design

Experiment Characteristics

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

Post-Trial

Study Withdrawal

Intervention

Data Publication

Program Files

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials