Understanding the Use of Dietary Supplements among Athlete and Non-Athlete University Students: Development and Validation of a Questionnaire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it