DISCUSSION QUESTION IN SPORTS MANAGEMENT

Journal of Athletic Training 2012:47(2):205-211 © by the National Athletic Trainers'Association, Inc www.nata.org/jat

original research

Sports Nutrition Knowledge Among Collegiate Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Strength and Conditioning Specialists Toni M. Torres-McGehee, PhD, ATC*; Kelly L. Pritchett, PhD, RD, CSSDt; Deborah Zippel, MS, RD*; Dawn M. Minton, MS, ATC*; Adam Cellamare, MS, ATC*; Mike Sibilia, MS, ATC, PES, CES* *University of South Carolina, Columbia; fCentral Washington University, Ellensburg

Context: Coaches, athletic trainers (ATs), strength and conditioning specialists (SCSs), and registered dietitians are common nutrition resources for athletes, but coaches, ATs, and SCSs might offer only limited nutrition information. Little research exists about sports nutrition knowledge and cur- rent available resources for nutrition information for athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs.

Objective: To identify resources of nutrition information that athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs use; to examine nutri- tion knowledge among athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs; and to determine confidence levels in the correctness of nutrition knowledge questions within all groups.

Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I,

II, and III institutions across the United States. Patients and Other Participants: The 579 participants

consisted of athletes (n = 185), coaches (n = 131), ATs (n = 192), and SCSs (n = 71).

Main Outcome Measure(s): Participants answered ques- tions about nutrition resources and domains regarding basic nutrition, supplements and performance, weight management, and hydration. Adequate sports tiutrition knowledge was de-

fined as an overall score of 75% in all domains (highest achiev- able score was 100%).

Results: Participants averaged 68.5% in all domains. The ATs (77.8%) and SCSs (81.6%) had the highest average scores. Adequate knowledge was found in 35.9% of coaches, 71.4% of ATs, 83.1 % of SCSs, and only 9% of athletes. The most used nutrition resources for coaches, ATs, and SCSs were registered dietitians.

Conclusions: Overall, we demonstrated that ATs and SCSs have adequate sports nutrition knowledge, whereas most coaches and athletes have inadequate knowledge. Athletes have frequent contact with ATs and SCSs; therefore, proper nutrition education among these staff members is critical. We suggest that proper nutrition programming should be provided for athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs. However, a separate nu- trition program should be integrated for ATs and SCSs. This integrative approach is beneficial for the continuity of care, as both categories of professionals might be developing and inte- grating preventive or rehabilitative programs for athletes.

Key Words: nutrition education, registered dietitians, nutri- tion resources

Key Points Athletic trainers and strength and conditioning specialists have adequate sports nutrition knowledge but should defer to an expert in the field, such as a registered dietitian, when situations arise beyond their scopes of practice. Most collegiate athletes and coaches have inadequate nutrition knowledge. Nutrition education programs should be provided for athletes, coaches, athletic trainers, and strength and conditioning specialists. Nutrition programs should be integrated into the undergraduate or graduate and continuing education of athletic trainers and strength and conditioning specialists to Improve continuity of care.

Over the past 20 years, researchers have documented thebenefits of nutrition related to exercise performance.In a joint position statement, the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, and Dieti- tians of Canada reported that "physical activity, athletic per- formance, and recovery from exercise are enhanced by optimal nutrition.""P'""* Following these guidelines might improve an athlete's training, recovery, and performance. However, col- legiate athletes might encounter numerous barriers that hinder healthful eating, including deficits in nutrition knowledge,^"* vegetarian or restricted dietary intake, or participation in ex- cessive exercise.''"'" Athletes must have appropriate nutrition

knowledge and easily accessible resources for nutrition guid- ance. Coaches, athletic trainers (ATs), strength and condi- tioning specialists (SCSs), and registered dietitians (RDs) are primary nutrition resources""; however, athletic department staff personnel (eg, coaches, ATs, SCSs) might offer only lim- ited factual information.^ The joint position statement identified key areas of nutrition that are important for athletes: energy needs, body composition, macronutrient requirements, vita- mins and minerals, hydration, training diet, and supplements and ergogenic aids.'

A major concern for professionals lacking sports nutrition knowledge is that they might disseminate incorrect information

Journal of Athletic Training 205

formulated on theory or unsupported by research. A few re- searchers'*'̂ •'•' have examined nutrition knowledge of collegiate coaches, ATs, and SCSs; however, sample sizes for these stud- ies were small, and the results are nearly a decade old. Inves- tigators have suggested that coaches lack nutrition knowledge, but ATs' knowledge has been inconsistent. Smith-Rockwell et al'-* found that the nutrition knowledge of ATs was less (66%) than that of ATs in the study by Shifflett and colleagues" (74%). Since the earlier studies,"'-' the National Athletic Trainers' As- sociation (NATA)'" has updated its curriculum on educational competencies on nutrition; therefore, basic nutrition knowledge for ATs should increase for recently certified ATs. Current ATs might not have received nutrition education associated with these competencies. Reexamining ATs' nutrition knowledge for this decade is critical. Strength and conditioning specialists are a newly credentialed profession and an integral part of athlet- ics. The SCSs generally are responsible for the athlete's physi- cal development, fitness, and conditioning and often address nutrition. Little research has been conducted on the nutrition knowledge and resources of SCSs because it is a rather new profession. Smith-Rockwell et al'^ conducted the only study that has included SCSs; however, because the sample was small (n=: 10), SCSs were combined with coaches.

Given academic, financial, psychosocial, and sport perfor- mance Stressors, optimizing nutrition might be challenging in the collegiate environment. Demands of performance and train- ing place athletes at greater risk for musculoskeletal injury, psychological problems, medical complications, and subopti- mal energy availability.''° Proper training and optimal energy availability are essential to maximize both health and perfor- mance'; however, access to nutrition resources might be limited for athletes. They have reported consulting coaches, ATs, SCSs, university courses, parents, and RDs for nutrition guidance,^"" but they still lack nutrition knowledge."'""" Although some universities have RDs on staff, athletic support staff (coaches, ATs, and SCSs) are in daily contact with athletes and might be called on to distribute nutrition information. Consequently, support staff should have adequate nutrition knowledge until an RD can provide more extensive information.

The importance of having an RD on staff has been identi- fied at some universities, but other institutions might not have access to an RD or do not have a full-time RD working directly with athletes. Therefore, nutrition guidance for athletic teams and support staff might be limited. Little information is avail- able about sports nutrition knowledge and current available re- sources for nutrition information among athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs. Therefore, the purposes of our study were to (1) iden- tify resources of nutrition information that athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs use; (2) examine nutrition knowledge among athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs; and (3) determine confidence levels in the correctness of answers to questions about nutri- tion knowledge in all groups. Given educational requirements of ATs and the daily duties of SCSs, we hypothesized that ATs and SCSs would have adequate knowledge, would have greater confidence in their responses, and would select more reliable sources of nutrition knowledge than athletes and coaches.

METHODS

Participants

A simple random sample of athletes (n = 400), coaches (n=400), and SCSs (n = 200) were contacted at 100 National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I, II, and III universities to participate in the study. A random sample of collegiate ATs (n = 500) were selected by the NATA via a member request for random e-mail distribution of members for research. The total response rate was 38.6% (n = 579). The response rate for each group was 46.3% (n= 185) of athletes (women=lll, men = 74; age=19.9±1.6 years; freshmen = 60, sophomores = 64, juniors = 36; seniors = 25), 32.8% (n=131) of coaches (women = 60, men = 71; age = 34.2±9.7 years), 38.4% (n=192) of ATs (women = 94, men = 98; age = 33.7±9.1 years), and 35.5% (n=71) of SCSs (women=12, men = 59; age = 32.6±7.2 years). A diverse sample of coaches repre- sented the following sports: baseball (n = 7), basketball (n = 25), cheerleading (n = 2), cross-country (n = 5), equestrian (n = 2), football ( n = l l ) , golf (n = 8), gymnastics (n = 3), ice hockey (n=4), lacrosse ( n = l ) , rowing (n = 2), soccer (n=12), swim- ming and diving (n = 7), tennis (n = 3), track and field (n= 11), volleyball (n=12), and wrestling (n=16). A diverse sample of athletes represented the following sports: baseball (n=13), basketball (n=16), cheerleading (n=4), dance (n=10), eques- trian (n = 21), football (n = 34), golf ( n = l ) , ice hockey (n = 5), lacrosse (n = 6), soccer (n= 12), swimming and diving (n= 13), tennis (n = 5), track and field (n = 5), volleyball (n = 25), and wrestling (n= 15). All volunteers completed an online informed consent form and were given the opportunity to decline to par- ticipate. The study was approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board.

Instruments

The survey consisted of a demographics section and sports nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Participants reported age, ethnicity, sex, level of education, occupation, years of experi- ence, number of health and nutrition courses taken, and sport. They used a 10-point Likert scale (1 =not at all, 5= fairly well, \Q = extremely well) to rank answers to questions about nutri- tion programs attended, nutrition resources available, per- ceived nutrition knowledge, and habits and were instructed to rank their top 3 choices of nutrition information used and top 3 recommended resources for athletes. Athletes also were asked, "Who do you feel most comfortable discussing your nutritional needs with?"

The sports nutrition knowledge questionnaire consisted of 20 multiple-choice questions. To assess adequate nutrition knowledge, questions were categorized into 4 domains of sports nutrition: micronutrients and macronutrients, supplements and performance, weight management and eating disorders, and hydration. The micronutrient and macronutrient portion fo- cused on adequate caloric intake from carbohydrates, fats, and proteins and information about vitamins and minerals. Supple- ments and performance focused on knowledge about prégame meals, supplements, and ergogenic aids. The weight manage- ment and eating disorders section focused on safe weight loss and gain strategies, complications from eating disorders, and body composition assessment. Hydration questions focused on heat complications, fluid loss, electrolytes, and hyponatremia. All domains were weighted equally during scoring, and per- centages were determined by the number of incorrect answers divided by 20. An overall score of 75% or more from the do- mains of basic nutrition, supplements and performance, weight management, and hydration indicated adequate nutrition knowledge, with a score less than 75% indicating inadequate nutrition knowledge. After each question, participants were

206 Volume 47 • Number 2 • Aprii 2012

instructed to specify their confidence in the correctness of their answers by selecting the appropriate level of confidence from a 4-point Likert scale (1 =not at all confident, 2 = not very con- fident, 3= somewhat confident, 4 = very confident). We graded the survey questions and then divided confidence scores into 2 categories: confidence score for correct answers and confidence score for incorrect answers!

Construct validity was established by 12 professionals who regularly worked with collegiate athletes in the following dis- ciplines: nutrition (sports dietitians = 2), athletic training (n = 5), exercise physiology (n = 2), SCSs (ri = 2), and sports medicine (physician =1). The ATs and SCSs yerified educational com- petencies on nutrition in their respective disciplines. The RDs (experts) and physicians provided valid feedback on develop- ment of questions and answers for all basic sports nutrition categories. All reviewers had at least 5 years of experience working in their disciplines. The survey initially included 50 nuti"ition questions but was reduced to 20 in response to recom- meridations from the review panel and a pilot study. The pilot survey was completed by additional athletes (n = 21), coaches (n = 8), ATs (n= 15), and SCSs (n = 8). Suggestions from the ex- perts and feedback from the pilot study were considered, and appropriate corrections were made.

Procedures

Athletes, coaches, and SCSs were selected randomly from NCAA Division I, II, and III institutions. Through simple ran- dom selection, coaches and SCSs were chosen from university directories. Coaches who responded were sent a follow-up e- mail to ask whether their athletes could participate in the study. If coaches allowed their athletes to participate, they were in- structed to send e-mail addresses without names or type of sport associated with their teams through a link on a professional, secure Web site (SurveyMonkey, Palo Alto, CA). If coaches did not allow their athletes to participate, then they did not submit e-mail addresses. After e-mail addresses were compiled, each participant was assigned an identification number and was sent an e-mail via SurveyMonkey. The e-mail message included a short statement about the purposes of the study along with a statement including benefits ("If you consent to participate in this study, results may help enhance nutrition information dis- tributed to collegiate athletes to provide the best care possible and to enhance athletes' training, recovery, and performance"). The link given in the e-mail provided more in-depth infor- mation about the stiidy along with a staterhent about giving consent to participate. Sending an e-mail directly through Sur- veyMonkey allowed us to track responses via the identification number. To encourage participation, reminders were sent every 10 days for 30 days. The ATs were selected randomly via the NATA and sent only 1 e-mail from the NATA. We were unable to send follow-up e-mails to the ATs. Data collection lasted ap- proximately 1 month.

Data Analysis

To determine power and sample size for each population, we used an a priori a = .05 and a between-groups effect size of 0.4, following the method of Cohen.'* Power calculation indicated a need for approximately 100 participants per group to have adequate statistical power of approximately 60%. We used x̂ analyses to examine the distribution of variables, including occupational background (athlete, coach, AT, or SCS), profes- sional experience, institutional level, and basic questions about

nutrition resources. We computed basic descriptive statistics for. all descriptive data and computed individual test scores and confidence levels for correct and incorrect responses. A criterion score (75%) was established to determine adequate nutrition knowledge. We used a X" analysis to examine the dis- tribution of athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs with adequate and inadequate nutrition knowledge. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare differences among groups (ath- letes, coaches, ATs, SCSs) for knowledge and healthful eating habits. Tukey post hoc tests were used to determine the mean differences within each group. The a level was set at .05 for all analyses. We used SPSS statistical software (version XVII; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) for all analyses.

RESULTS

Results pertaining to professional experience, institutional level, access to RDs, and RDs' location of employment are presented in Table 1. Choices for nutrition resources used for themselves and nutrition resources recommended to athletes are presented in Table 2. The data represent choices selected within each group. Data from first and second choices were combined to determine the top resources that each group used. The first and second choices (data combined) of people from whom athletes felt comfortable seeking nutritional advice in- cluded SCSs (15.3%, n = 85), parents (12.1%, n = 67), and ATs (10.5%, n = 58). Supplemental questions about the level of un- derstanding of athletes' nutritional needs, the importance of adhering to a healthful diet, and the quality of personal eating habits revealed differences (Fj^,; range, 3.9-11.3; P<.001) among all groups for each of the 3 questions (Table 3).

Percentages for adequate and inadequate nutrition knowl- edge are presented in Table 4. Overall nutrition knowledge scores, nutrition categories, and confidence level scores for ath- letes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs are reported in Table 5. We found a difference (̂ 35,0 range, 39.3-88.7; P<.001) among all groups for all sports nutrition categories (micronütrients and macronu- trients, supplements and performance, weight management and eating disorders, and hydration). Tukey post hoc analysis re- vealed differences for athletes versus ATs and SCSs for all cat- egories and for coaches versus ATs and SCSs (Table 5). We did not find a difference between ATs and SCSs throughout all cat- egories (Table 5). The number of nutrition courses (3-4 cred- its) taken by athletes was 0.9±0.66; coaches, 1.1 ±1.4; ATs, 1.8±1.9; and SCSs, 2.9±2.3. The number of health courses ( 3 ^ credits) taken by athletes was 1.2±2.0; coaches, 2.6±3.5; ATs, 4.8±6.0; and SCSs, 3.9±3.9.

DISCUSSION

Registered Dietitian

An RD with specialization in sports ndthition is a critical member of the sports medicine team. The RD is involved in conducting a comprehensive nutrition assessment and consul- tation, providing medical nutrition therapy, identifying nutri- tion problems that affect health and performance, addressing energy balance and weight management issues, addressing nu- trition challenges to performance, promoting wound and injury healing, and overseeing menu planning and design (pre-event, postevent, and travel).' Overall, 58.2% (n = 337) of our partici- pants reported having access to an RD: Many collegiate ath- letic departments have created positions for RDs. Our results

Journal of Athletic Training 207

Table 1. Background Information for All Participants, Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Strength and Conditioning Specialists^

Professional experience, y

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 >20

National Collegiate Athletic Association Division 1 II III

Access to registered dietitian? Yes No

Location of employment for registered dietitian Full-time athletics Part-time athletics Full-time student health Part-time student health Off-campus or private practice

All, n (%)

128(32.5) 114(28.9) 65(16.5) 35 (8.9) 52(12.3)

354(61.1) 132(22.8) 93(16.1)

337 (58.2) 242(41.8)

74(21.9) 95 (28.2) 68 (20.2) 40 (11.9) 60 (17.8)

Athletes, n (%)

NA NA NA NA NA

83 (44.9) 78 (42.2) 24(12.9)

94 (50.8) 91 (49.2)

34 (36.2) 33 (35.1) 11(11.7) 7 (7.4) 9 (9.6)

Coaches, n (%)

41 (31.3) 38 (29.0) 27 (20.6) 2(1.5)

23(17.6)

89 (67.9) 21 (16.0) 21 (16.0)

78 (59.5) 53 (40.5)

10(12.8) 22 (28.2) 21 (26.9) 11 (14.1) 14(17.9)

Athletic Trainers, n (%)

61 (31.8) 53 (27.6) 24(12.5) 29(15.1) 25(13.0)

122(63.5) 28(14.6) 42(21.9)

121 (63) 71 (37)

23(19.0) 29 (24.0) 22(18.2) 15(12.4) 32 (26.4)

Strength and Conditioning

Specialists, n (%)

26 (36.6) 23 (32.4) 14(19.7) 4 (5.6) 4 (5.6)

60 (84.5) 5 (7.0) 6 (8.5)

44 (62) 27 (38)

7(15.9) 11 (25.0) 14(31.8) 7(15.9) 5(11.4)

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable. "Indicates that values are reported in sample sizes and percentages and are rounded.

Table 2. Distribution of Personal Nutrition Resources Used and Nutrition Resources Recommended for Athletes by Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Strength and Conditioning Specialists^

Personal Nutrition Resources Used Resources Recommended for Athletes

Group Resource n (%) Resource n (%) Athletes

Coaches

Athletic trainers

Strength and conditioning specialist Athletic trainer Coach

Athletic trainer Registered dietitian Strength and conditioning specialist

Academic journal Registered dietitian Physician

Strength and conditioning specialists

Academic journal Registered dietitian Strength and conditioning specialist

90(16.2) Strength and conditioning specialist 95(17.1) 63 (11.4) Athletic trainer 77 (13.9) 43(7.7) Registered dietitian 75(13.5)

65 (16.5) Registered dietitian 85 (21.6) 50(12.7) Athletic trainer 64(16.3) 35 (8.9) Strength and conditioning specialist 32 (8.1) '

116 (20.1) Registered dietitian 147 (25.5) 108(18.8) Athletic trainer 112(19.4) 42 (7.3) Physician 53 (9.2)

41(19.2) Registered dietitian 47(22.1) 35(16.4) Strength and conditioning specialist 42(19.7) 21(9.9) College nutrition course 16(7.5)

"Given the large amount of data, sample size and percentage values represent the combined first and second choices for associated forced ranked responses; therefore, not all data are presented.

indicated that 50.1% (n=169) of athletic departments had a full-time (21.9%, n = 74) or part-time (28.2%, n = 95) RD des- ignated for athletes. The other 49.9% (n=168) had access to an RD from either the student health center or a private prac- tice off campus. Athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs have busy schedules; therefore, an expert in nutrition (eg, an RD, if avail- able) needs to develop a working relationship with the athletic

staff and provide education and counseling about food and nutrition."

Nutrition Resources

Often, athletes have misinformed beliefs about their nu- tritional needs and are exposed to nutrition information from

208 Volume 47 • Number 2 • April 2012

Table 3. Understanding of Athletes' Nutritional Needs, Importance of Adherence to a Healthful Diet, and Quality of Eating Habits for All Participants, Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Strength and Conditioning Specialists (Mean±SD)°

All Athletes Coaches Athletic Trainers

Strength and Conditioning Specialists P Value

Understanding of athletes' nutritional needs"

Importance of athletes' adherence to a healthful diet"

Quality of eating habits"

6.6 ± 1 . 9

8 . 9 ± 1 . 5

6 . 5 ± 1 . 8

6.3 ± 1 . 9

8.63 ± 1 . 6

6.2 ± 1 . 8

6 . 2 ± 2 . 0

9.1 ± 1 . 4

6.6 ± 1 . 9

6 . 9 ± 1 . 6

8.9 ± 1 . 3

6 . 4 ± 1 . 6

7 . 5 ± 1 . 5

9.2 ± 1 . 7

7 . 6 ± 1 . 6

11.3

3.9

9.5

<.OO1

.01

<.OO1

^Indicates that scores were based on a Likert scale, with anchors of 1 {not at all) and 10 (exireme/y well). "Indicates that Tukey post hoc assessment revealed differencesbetween coaches and athletic trainers and between coaches and strength and conditioning specialists (P<.01). ' . ' ° Indicates that tukey post hoc assessment revealed differences between athletes and coaches and between athletes and strength and conditioning specialists (P<.01). • ' "Indicates that Tukey post hoc assessment revealed differences between strength and conditioning specialists and coaches, athletic trainers, and athletes |P<;01). •

Table 4. Distribution of Adequate and Inadequate Nutrition Knowledge for All Participants and Within Each Group for Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, ana Strength and Conditioning Specialists^

All . ' _ " Athletes" Coaches Athletic trainers Strength and conditioning specialists

Adequate Nutrition Knowledge, n (%)

.• 261 (45.1) 16(9.0) 47 (35.9)

137(71.4) 59 (83.1)

Inadequate Nutrition Knowledge, n (%)

318(55.9) 161 (91.0) 84 (64.1) 55 (28.6) 12(16.9)

192.1

P Value

<.OO1

^Indicates that values are presented in sample sizes and percentages. " Indicates that 8 athletes did not answer the questions. .

multiple professional resources (coaches, ATs, SCSs, RDs). In our study, the top choice of coaches, ATs, and SCSs was an RD, whereas previous researchers have found health books'^ and ATs to be the primary resources for coaches and academic jour- nals for ATs." Athletes' primary nutrition resources were ATs and SCSs, which is consistent with the findings of Jacobson et aF and Bums et al"; however, their top choices did not include RDs. These findings aré consistent with our results that ath- letes felt most comfortable seeking nutrition advice from ATs and SCSs. This might be due to the relationships developed through everyday contact ahd the responsibilities these people have for the athlete's overall well-being. In contrast, Shifflett et al" found that the primary choice for nutrition information for many athletes was their parents. Although we did not find that athletes selected parents as their primary choice, many athletes (22.2%, n=41; data not shown) felt very comfortable seeking nutrition advice from their parents. No researchers have exam- ined nutrition resources specifically for SCSs.

Participants ranked the top 3 nutrition resources they would recOnimend for their athletes. Interestingly, the recommenda- tions of̂ coaches, ATs, and SCSs for athletes were slightly dif- ferent.from their own nutrition resources. The ATs and SCSs both" used reliable nutrition resources,' such as RDs, academic journals, college nutrition courses, and physicians. They rnight haye consulted these resources for personal knowledge while seeking advice for their athletes. Our participants reported understanding the importance of proper nutrition for athletes, and most had an average understanding of athletes' nutritional needs and the quality of their personal eating habits. Although

those working with athletes need to understand the importance of adhering to a healthful diet, modeling healthful eating be- haviors is also important and can positively affect athletes.

Nutrition Knowledge

Overall, participants had just below-average nutrition knowledge for all domains. The ATs and SCSs had the high- est nutrition scores, suggesting that they have enough nutrition knowledge to disseminate appropriate information to athletes. However, 28.6% of ATs had inadequate nutrition knowledge, compared with only 16.9% of SCSs. Possible reasons for lower scores could include ATs not corhpleting the newer curriculum competencies for nutrition and ATs needing to use continuing education to enhance their nutrition knowledge. The findings regarding the overall nutrition knowledge of ATs are similar to those of previous investigations."*!^'" Our results demonstrated no difference between ATs and SCSs, suggesting comparable nutrition knowledge. Both coaches and athletes had lower av- erage scores than the ATs and SCSs, showing continuity with previous research.^'"!^'^'^ No researchers have examined SCSs as a single group.

Micronutrients and Macronutrients. This section had the lowest average score for all participants. The ATs and SCSs had the highest average scores and were the most confident in their correct answers. Questions about micronutrients and macronu- trients might have been different from those in previous stud- ies, but ATs' knowledge in this domain has increased compared with previously reported findings.'^ Although ATs scored high.

Journal of Athletic Training 209

Table 5. Nutrition Knowledge Scores Presented by Percentages and by Domains and Mean Confidence Scores (Likert Scale, 1-4) Arhong All Participants, Athletes, Coaches, Athletic Trainers, and Strength and Conditioning Specialists (Mean±SD)°

All . Athletes" Coaches'̂

Strength and Athletic Conditioning Trainers" Specialists^ P Value

All questions. • Knowledge score, % Confidence score for correct answers Confidence score for incorrect answers

Micronutrients and niacronutrients Knowledge score, % Confidence score for correct answers Confidence score for incorrect answers

Supplements and performance Knowledge soore, % Confidence score for correct answers Confidence score for incorrect answers

Weight managenient and eating disorders Knowledge score, % Confidence score for correct answers Confidence soore for incorrect answers

Hydration , knowledge soore, % Confidence score for correct answers' Confidence score for indorrect answers

68.5±16.1 3.2 ±0.23 2.6±0.25

62.6±22.3 3.3±0.27 2.7±0.25

78.7±20.i 3.2 ±0.05 2.4±0.28

64.8±23.2 3.3±o:28 2.7±0.27

67.7 ±23.5 3.1 ±0.34 2.5±0.18

54.9±13.5 2.8 ±0.34 2.4±0.37

51.8±20.5 3.0±0.45 2.6±0.39

66.3±19.9 2.8 ±0.23 2.2 ±0.44

47.0±21.9 2.8±0.34 2.5±0.36

54.7 ±24.2 2.7±0.33 2.3±0.27

65.9±14.3 3.0±0.27 2.4 ±0.34

58.0±19.4 3.1 ±0.35 2.6±0.44

79.9 ±18.9 3.1 ±0.10 2.2±0.28

63.8±20.9 3.1 ±0.39 2.6±0.22

61.9±22.4 2.7±0.22 2.3 ±0.43

77.8±10.3 3.4±0.20 2.9±0.38

70.7±20.9 3.4±0.18 2.9±0.33

85.0±17.1 3.3 ±0.09 2.7±0.41

76.2 ±15.9 3.6±0.17 3.3±0.38

79.4±17.2 3.4±0.36 3.0±0.42

81.6±10.3 3.5±0.26 2.9±0.38

76.1 ±20.2 3.5 ±0.32 2.3±0.50

90.4±13.9 3.5±0.14 2.8±0.26

80.3 ±16.4 3.7±0.21 3.1 ±0.48

79.4±16.2 3.4±0.35 3.2±0.28

135.8

39.3

45.4

88.7

54.6

<.OO1

<.OO1

<.OO1

<.OO1

<.OO1

^Confidence score is the confidence level detei'mined by respondents' actual correct or incorrect answer. "Indicates that Tukey post hoo assessment revealed differences between athletes and athletic trainers (P<.05) and between strength and conditioning specialists and all groups (P<.05). ' I n d i c a t e s that Tukey post hoc assessment revealed differences between coaohes and athletic trainers (P<.05) and between strength and conditioning specialists and all groups (P<.05).

"Indicates no differences in all categories for athletic trainers and strength and conditioning specialists (P>.05).

they had higher-than-normal confidence in incorrect answers, suggesting that incorrect information might be disseminated to athletes. Although coaches and athletes were confident in their correct answers, they reported the lowest scores, which was consistent with the findings of Corley et al'^ and Smith- Rockwell et al.'^ .

Supplements and Performance. This section had the highest average scores for all participants, which is consistent with the findings of previous studies'^; however, comparisons should be made with caution because of possible differences in survey questions. Whereas coaches, ATs, and SCSs reported above-average knowledge, in this category, athletes remained at the bottom. Athletes must understand supplements and per- formance so they can avoid taking supplements that are detri- mental to their health and impermissible when participating in NCAA sports. All groups were confident in their correct an- swers; however, SCSs reported higher confidence in incorrect answers than any other group.

Weight Management and Eating Disorders. This cat- egory had the second lowest average score for all participants. The ATs and SCSs had the highest scores, with athletes having lower scores than all other groups. All participants had high confidence in correct answers, but the ATs and SCSs were equally confident in incorrect answers, which is disconcerting. This suggests that people who usually are believed to be the most reliable resources for weight gain and loss information and eating disorders might be overly confident in their advice, although it might be iriaccurate.

Hydration. The ATs and SCSs had both the highest average scores and the most confidence in both correct and incorrect

responses, suggesting that further nutrition research for these people might be warranted. Athletes and coaches were in the middle regarding confidence in correct answers and were un- sure of incorrect responses, suggesting that they should seek assistance from resources other than themselves when inquir- ing about sports nutrition. Although the mean scores for ATs and SCSs were above average for nutrition knowledge, seeking help from RDs and sports dietitians still might be beneficial for them because it is outside their scope of practice to prescribe or develop nutrition plans.

Limitations

One limitation of our study was that the survey was sent via e-mail, and the participant was directed to an online sur- vey. Participants might not have received the e-mail because it might have been filtered into junk or spam folders. In addition, the NATA sent only 1 e-mail to ATs; therefore, a follow-up was not conducted. Although many of the coaches completed the survey, many chose not to include their athletes, so recruiting athletes was difficult. Dispersion of participants among NCAA Division T, II, and III institutions was low, prohibiting compari- son between divisions. In addition, the survey was anonymous, and we could not establish links to participants within the same institution. This.woùld have allowed us to identify mutual staff- ing and access to sports medicine services. Lastly, the survey included only 20 questions, but each question required a confi- dence interval selection, increasing the length of time to com- plete the survey.

210 Volume 47 • Number 2 »April 2012

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

Athletes often work with ATs and SCSs rather than RDs; therefore, proper nutrition education among the athletic staff is critical. Overall, we demonstrated that ATs and SCSs have adequate sports nutrition knowledge; however, some of them were overly confident in their incorrect answers. The ATs and SCSs should be cautious when disseminating nutrition advice to athletes. When situations arise beyond the ATs' or SCSs' scope of practice, referral to an RD or expert in the field is im- perative and professionally beneficial. Furthermore, adequate sports nutrition knowledge can improve an AT's standard of care (eg, injury prevention, rehabilitation), yet approximately one-third oif ATs reported inadequate sports nutrition knowl- edge. This might be due to the magnitude of additional respon- sibilities (eg, clinical evaluation and diagnosis, immediate care, treatment, rehabilitation and reconditioning of athletes, and or- ganization and administration). On the other hand, SCSs might focus more on specific performance enhancement, body com- position assessment, and team or individual training on a daily basis with no medical responsibilities. Finally, we suggest that nutrition programming should be integrated for both ATs and SCSs during their collegiate and continuing education. This integrative approach improves the continuity of care because both categories of professionals might be developing and inte- grating preventive or rehabilitative programs for athletes.

Athletes and coaches were represented from a wide variety of sports, thus eliminating any assumptions that responses from athletes and coaches would be from those sports more likely to have an interest in nutrition or rely heavily on nutrition for per- formance (eg, sports that rely on high-intensity training, such as football, wrestling, or track and field, or aesthetic sports, such as gymnastics, cross-country, or dance). Coaches and athletes are using more reliable resources for nutrition information, yet their nutrition knowledge is still lacking. More importantly, athletes in our study revealed that they understood the impor- tance of adhering to a healthful diet and fairly well understood the value of an athlete's nutritional needs, but as a group, they had the poorest overall scores. Because athletes and coaches both reported frequently obtaining nutrition information from ATs and SCSs, we suggest that nutrition education programs in- clude athletes and coaches. Ideally, these educational programs would be instructed by qualified nutrition educators (eg, nutri- tionists, RDs). Future research should include (1) examining nutrition knowledge differences between NCAA Division I, II, and III institutions; (2) examining the sports nutrition knowl- edge of athletes, coaches, ATs, and SCSs who have access to full-time RDs and comparing it with the knowledge of those who do not have this access; and (3) examining sports nutrition knowledge for specific or categorized sports (eg, power sports, aesthetic sports).

1. American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada. Nutrition and athletic performance: joint position statement. Med Sei Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):709-731.

2. Jacobson BH, Sobonya C, Ransone J. Nutrition practices and knowledge of college varsity atliietes: a foWow-up. J Strength Cond Res. 2001;15(l):63- 68.

3. Rosenbloom CA, Jonnaiagadda SS, Sicinner R. Nutrition knowledge of collegiate athletes in a Division I Nationai Coiiegiate Athietic Association institution, y/Im Diet Assoc. 2002;102(3):418-420.

4. Shifflett B, Timm C, Kahanov L. Understanding of athletes' nutritional needs among athletes, coaches, and athletic trainers. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73(3):357-362.

5. Zawila LG, Steib CS, Hoogenboom B. The female collegiate cross-country runner: nutritional knowledge and attitudes. J Athl Train. 2003;38(l):67- 74.

6. Froiland K, Koszewski W, Hingst J, Kopecky L. Nutritional supplement use among college athletes and their sources of information. lnt J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2004;14(l):104-120.

7. Manore MM. Nutritional needs of the female athlete. Clin Sports Med. 1999,18(3):549-563.

8. Cobb KL, Bachrach LK, Greendale G, et al. Disordered eating, menstrual irregularity, and bone mineral density in female runners. Med Sei Sports &ei-c.2003;35(5):711-719.

9. Nattiv A, Loucks AB, Manore MM, et al; American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: the female athlete triad. Med Sei Sport Exerc. 2007;39( 10): 1867-1882.

10. Bonci CM, Bonci LJ, Granger LR, et al. National Athletic Trainers' Asso- ciation position statement: preventing, detecting, and managing disordered eating in athletes. 7/KW Train. 2008;43(l):80-108.

11. Bums RD, Schiller MR, Merrick MA, Wolf KN. Intercollegiate student athlete use of nutritional supplements and the role of athletic trainers and dietitians in nutrition counseling. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104(2):246-249.

12. Corley G, Demarest-Litchford M, Bazzarre TL. Nutrition knowledge and dietary practices of college coaches. J Am Diet Assoc. 1990;90(5):705- 709.

13. Smith-Rockwell M, Nickols-Richardson SM, Thye FW. Nutrition knowl- edge, opinions, and practices of coaches and athletic trainers at a Division I university. lnt J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2001;ll(2):174-185.

14. National Athletic Trainers' Association. Athletic Training Educational Competencies. 4th ed. Dallas, TX: National Athletic Trainers' Association; 2006.

15. Dunn D, Turner LW, Denny G. Nutrition knowledge and attitudes of col- lege athletes. Sport J. 2007; 10(4): 1-5.

16. Rastmanesh R, Taleban FA, Kimiagar M, Mehrabi Y, Salehi M. Nutritional knowledge and attitudes in athletes with physical disabilities. J Athl Train. 2007;42(l):99-105.

17. Rash CL, Malinauskas BM, Duffrin MW, Barber-Heidal K, Overton RF Nutrition-related knowledge, attitude, and dietary intake of college track athletes. Sport J. 2008;ll(l):48-55.

18. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988:145-178.

19. Graves KL, Farthing MC, Smith SA, Turchi JM. Nutrition training, at- titudes, knowledge, recommendations, responsibility, and resource utiliza- tion of high school coaches and trainers. J/im DietAssoe. 1991;91(3):321— 324.

Address correspondence to Toni M. Torres-McGehee, PhD, ATC, University of South Carolina, Blatt PE Center 218, Columbia, SC 29208. Address e-mail to [email protected].

Journal of Athletio Training 211

Copyright of Journal of Athletic Training is the property of Allen Press Publishing Services Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.