| Literature DB >> 30397554 |
Megan E Rosa-Caldwell1,2, Christopher Todden2, Aaron R Caldwell1,2, Lauren E Breithaupt3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders are serious psychological disorders with long term health impacts. Athletic populations, tend to have higher incidences of eating disorders compared to the general population. Yet there is little known about athletes' eating disorder knowledge and how it relates to their confidence in their knowledge. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to evaluate collegiate female athletes' eating disorder (ED) knowledge and confidence in their knowledge. 51 participants were recruited from a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) university in the mid-west and asked to complete a 30-question exam assessing one's knowledge of five different categories related to eating disorders. Confidence in the correctness of answers was assessed with a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = very unconfident, 5 = very confident). A one-way ANOVA was used to determine differences between scores on different categories and overall scores. A simple regression analysis was used to determine if confidence or age was predictive in knowledge scores.Entities:
Keywords: Anorexia; Bulimia; Coaching; Peer relationships; Sport; Women
Year: 2018 PMID: 30397554 PMCID: PMC6211262 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.5868
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Descriptive statistics of sports played by athletes in the current study.
Number of individual participants in each sport.
| Cheer/dance | 7 |
| Cross country/distance running | 8 |
| Golf | 1 |
| Basketball | 4 |
| Soccer | 9 |
| Tennis | 2 |
| Track-sprints/jumps | 8 |
| Track-throws | 1 |
| Volleyball | 6 |
| Softball | 5 |
Figure 1Scores on domains of eating disorder knowledge.
Subscale scores from the present study. The percent for each subscale was the sum of correct answers divided by the sum of total questions. The percents for all participants were then averaged to determine overall average percent. a, denotes a significant difference from etiology, signs and symptoms, management, and education. b, denotes a significant difference from signs and symptoms and risk factors. c, denotes a significant difference from management, risk factors, and education. The subscales sharing letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05).
Figure 2Average confidence of knowledge on various domains of eating disorder information.
Confidence values for subscales from the present study. The confidence for each question was summed and then divided by the total possible confidence (corresponding to a confidence score of 5 for each question), equating to the participant’s average confidence for that category. Average confidence was then averaged to determine an overage mean confidence for that category. a, denotes a significant difference from etiology. b, denotes a significant difference from education. Therefore, subscales sharing letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05).