Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Br J Nutr. 2012 Jun;107(12):1871-80. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511005125. Epub 2011 Oct 10.
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.
本研究旨在调查和基准化澳大利亚精英运动员（EA）的一般营养知识水平，将其与年龄相仿的社区（CM）和具有饮食训练背景的标准样本（DT）进行比较。EA（n=175）、CM（n=116）和 DT（n=53）完成了一般营养知识问卷（GNKQ），该问卷评估了一般营养知识的四个领域（A-D 节）（A 节：饮食指南；B 节：营养素来源；C 节：选择日常食物；D 节：饮食与疾病的关系）。所有组别的年龄、性别和教育水平均被收集，而 EA 则收集了运动水平和运动类型（团队或个人）。营养师和营养科学家（n=53）重新检查了 GNKQ 的内容效度，从而对工具进行了修订（R-GNKQ；96 个项目）。在一个子样本（n=28）中进行了心理测量评估（内部一致性：Cronbach-α；测试-再测试：Spearman 等级相关）。使用独立 t 检验、方差分析和协方差分析（分类变量的 χ²检验）来评估组间差异。在所有子部分和总体上，DT 的得分均高于 EA 和 CM（P＜0.005）。在 GNKQ 的 B 节（P＜0.005）和总体上（P＜0.005），以及在 R-GNKQ 的 B 节（P＜0.005）、C 节（P＜0.005）、D 节（P=0.006）和总体上（P＜0.005），EA 的得分均低于 CM。总分受年龄（GNKQ 为 P=0.036；R-GNKQ 为 P=0.053）、性别（GNKQ 为 P=0.016；R-GNKQ 为 P=0.003）和运动水平（仅 R-GNKQ 为 P=0.029）的影响，但不受教育水平、生活状况或种族的影响。EA 和 CM 在 A 节的表现最好，而在 D 节的表现最差。EA 的总体知识得分低于 CM。这主要受年龄和性别的影响。
