Search

Reliable and valid assessment of sports nutrition knowledge can inform athlete nutrition education to address knowledge gaps. This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of an electronically administered sports nutrition knowledge tool – Platform to Evaluate Athlete Knowledge of Sports Nutrition Questionnaire (PEAKS-NQ). A 94-item PEAKS-NQ was piloted to 149 developmental athletes (DA) in New Zealand, with a subset invited to complete the PEAKS-NQ again to assess reliability. Reliability was evaluated using sign test, intraclass correlation and Cronbach's α. Accredited sports dietitians (ASD; n 255) completed the PEAKS-NQ to establish construct validity via known-groups methodology and provided relevance scores to determine the scale content validity index (S-CVI). Rasch analysis was conducted to identify potentially problematic items and test reliability. Score differences between DA and ASD were analysed using independent t or non-parametric tests. DA (n 88) were 17·8 (sd 1·4) years, 61·4 % female and mostly in high school (94·3 %). ASD (n 45) were 37·8 (sd 7·6) years, 82·2 % female, with >5 years of dietetic experience (59·1 %). ASD scored higher than DA in all sections and overall (91·5 (sd 3·4) v. 67·1 (sd 10·5) %) (P < 0·001). There were no differences between retests (n 18; P = 0·14). Cronbach's α was 0·86. S-CVI indicated good content validity (0·88). Rasch analysis resulted in a fifty-item PEAKS-NQ with high item (0·91) and person (0·92) reliability. The PEAKS-NQ is reliable and valid for assessing sports nutrition knowledge which could assist practitioners effectively tailor and evaluate nutrition education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the present study was to investigate and benchmark the level of general nutrition knowledge in elite Australian athletes (EA) against a similar aged community (CM) and criterion sample with dietetic training (DT). EA (n 175), CM (n 116) and DT (n 53) completed the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (GNKQ), which assesses four domains (sections A–D) of general nutrition knowledge (section A: dietary guidelines; section B: sources of nutrients; section C: choosing everyday foods; section D: diet–disease relationships). Age, sex and education level were collected in all groups, and athletic calibre and sport type (team or individual) in EA. Dietitians and nutrition scientists (n 53) re-examined the GNKQ for content validity, resulting in instrument revision (R-GNKQ; ninety-six items). Psychometric assessment (internal consistency: Cronbach-α; test–retest: Spearman rank correlation) was performed in a sub-sample (n 28). Independent t tests, ANOVA and ANCOVA (χ2 for categorical variables) were used to assess between-group differences. DT scored higher than EA and CM in all sub-sections and overall (P < 0·005). EA scored lower than CM in GNKQ for section B (P < 0·005) and overall (P < 0·005), and in R-GNKQ for section B (P < 0·005), section C (P < 0·005), section D (P = 0·006) and overall (P < 0·005). Overall score was influenced by age (P = 0·036 for GNKQ: P = 0·053 for R-GNKQ), sex (P = 0·016 for GNKQ: P = 0·003 for R-GNKQ) and athletic calibre (P = 0·029 for R-GNKQ only), but not level of education, living situation or ethnicity. EA and CM performed best on section A and worst on D. EA had lower overall general knowledge scores than CM. This was significantly influenced by age and sex. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]