Understanding the Use of Dietary Supplements among Athlete and Non-Athlete University Students: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to develop and test the validity and reliability of a questionnaire to evaluate dietary supplement use based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). METHODS: The questionnaire has sections on demographics, physical activity, dietary supplements, and cognitive constructs based on the TPB. Three stages are followed. In Stage 1, elicitation interviews are conducted on five varsity athletes, five physically active non-athletes, and five physically inactive University of Guelph (UofG) students. In Stage 2, comments and ratings of the TPB-based statements are gathered from 10 subject matter experts to check for content validity. In Stage 3, Cronbach's α is calculated to determine the internal consistency of the cognitive constructs by a pilot test on 84 Applied Human Nutrition UofG students. RESULTS: Interviews assisted in the formulation of the cognitive constructs' statements, including intentions, attitudes, injunctive norms, descriptive norms, and perceived behavioural control. Content validity ensured that these constructs did not overlap. Few statements from the cognitive constructs were omitted based on findings from the reliability test, achieving acceptable Cronbach's α values across all constructs (≥0.70). CONCLUSIONS: This supplement use questionnaire will be used in a future study to investigate the use and determinants of dietary supplements among Canadian athlete and non-athlete UofG students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".