Premium
Validity and Reliability of an Algorithm to Help Select Safe Dietary Supplements
Author(s) -
Manganello Christopher,
Attipoe Selasi,
Deuster Patricia
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.733.4
Subject(s) - multivitamin , reliability (semiconductor) , algorithm , medicine , zoology , psychology , computer science , vitamin , biology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics
Background The use of dietary supplements (DS) is widespread in today's military. Service members use these products to enhance their performance and ability to conduct mission‐specific tasks; however, some of these products may be harmful. Objective To assess the reliability of the Operation Supplement Safety DS algorithm, a tool used to educate service members on safe selection of DS Methods: 4th year medical students completed the algorithm as part of an educational session on dietary supplements. Students scored 12 DS by using the algorithm, which consists of seven yes (1) or no (0) questions. Scores for the 12 DS were assessed for validity and reliability. Results: Forty responses for the 12 DS were examined. Six supplements were expected to receive a score of 蠅4, suggesting they were possibly safe. Following are the average scores (±SD) of the DS in relation to the intended score, without name of products: Melatonin (4.9±0.8 vs. 5.0), Fish oil (5.9±1.3 vs. 7.0), Multivitamin/mineral for men (4.0±0.9 vs. 5.0), Iron (4.2±1.4 vs. 5.0), Multivitamin/Mineral (3.8±1.1 vs. 5.0), Weight Loss (1.1±1.1 vs. 0.0), Sexual Enhancement (1.3±0.7 vs. 1.0), Protein Powder (1.6±1.4 vs. 1.0), Performance Enhancing A (1.5±1.0 vs. 2.0), Performance Enhancing B (2.0±1.0 vs. 3.0), Performance Enhancing C (0.6±0.5 vs. 0.0), and Performance Enhancing D (1.8±SD 1.0 vs. 3.0). Conclusions The students' scores had little variability and were generally comparable to expected outcomes. Although the results suggest this tool may be valid and reliable for items being tested, additional assessments are needed to validate this tool. This study was supported by Center Alliance for Dietary Supplement Research (NB91FD).