Preliminary Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Eating Inventory for Athletes

The field of eating disorders among athletes has recently been Preliminary Validation of the Portuguese Version of the Eating Inventory for Athletes Palmeira, A.L.(1); Veloso, S.(1); Falcão, M.J.(1); and Dosil, J.(2) Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Cronbach’s Alpha the focus of several publications, reflecting a growing field of interest and research (Dosil, 2008). Some sports demand a strict compliance to restrictive diets at different times of the competitive season, while others like, some types of gymnastics emphasize the thinness of the athletes. Hence there is a need to develop sound measures to evaluate the athletes eating habits and possible eating disorders. The Cuestionario de Hábitos Alimentarios del Deportista (CHAD), is one of these measures. It comprises 5 dimensions: i) Weight Gain Anxiety (e.g. If I eat too much I regret it afterwards; 12 items); ii) Body Image Worries (e.g., I’m always thinking about my body; 6 items,); iii) Irritability (e.g., If the coach speaks about weight matters, I feel anxious; 7 items); iv) Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Body Image (e.g., I’m satisfied with my appearance; 5 items); and v) Dieting (e.g., When the season ends, I keep practicing so that I don’t gain weight, 4 items).

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.

Systems thinking: learning or driving?

The ability to foresee how behaviour of a system arises from the interaction of its components over time - i.e. its dynamic complexity – is seen an important ability to take effective decisions in our turbulent world. Dynamic complexity emerges frequently from interrelated simple structures, such as stocks and flows, feedbacks and delays (Forrester, 1961). Common sense assumes an intuitive understanding of their dynamic behaviour. However, recent researches have pointed to a persistent and systematic error in people understanding of those building blocks of complex systems. This paper describes an empirical study concerning the native ability to understand systems thinking concepts. Two different groups - one, academic, the other, professional – submitted to four tasks, proposed by Sweeney and Sterman (2000) and Sterman (2002). The results confirm a poor intuitive understanding of the basic systems concepts, even when subjects have background in mathematics and sciences.