Evaluation of athletic training students' clinical proficiencies

Abstract

Context: Appropriate methods for evaluating clinical proficiencies are essential in ensuring entry-level competence. Objective: To investigate the common methods athletic training education programs use to evaluate student performance of clinical proficiencies. Design: Cross-sectional design. Setting: Public and private institutions nationwide. Patients or Other Participants: All program directors of athletic training education programs accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs as of January 2006 (n = 337); 201 (59.6%) program directors responded. Data Collection and Analysis: The institutional survey consisted of 11 items regarding institutional and program demographics. The 14-item Methods of Clinical Proficiency Evaluation in Athletic Training survey consisted of respondents' demographic characteristics and Likert-scale items regarding clinical proficiency evaluation methods and barriers, educational content areas, and clinical experience settings. We used analyses of variance and independent t tests to assess differences among athletic training education program characteristics and the barriers, methods, content areas, and settings regarding clinical proficiency evaluation. Results: Of the 3 methods investigated, simulations (n = 191, 95.0%) were the most prevalent method of clinical proficiency evaluation. An independent-samples t test revealed that more opportunities existed for real-time evaluations in the college or high school athletic training room (t189 = 2.866, P = .037) than in other settings. Orthopaedic clinical examination and diagnosis (4.37 ± 0.826) and therapeutic modalities (4.36 ± 0.738) content areas were scored the highest in sufficient opportunities for real-time clinical proficiency evaluations. An inadequate volume of injuries or conditions (3.99 ± 1.033) and injury/condition occurrence not coinciding with the clinical proficiency assessment timetable (4.06 ± 0.995) were barriers to real-time evaluation. One-way analyses of variance revealed no difference between athletic training education program characteristics and the opportunities for and barriers to real-time evaluations among the various clinical experience settings. Conclusions: No one primary barrier hindered real-time clinical proficiency evaluation. To determine athletic training students' clinical proficiency for entry-level employment, athletic training education programs must incorporate standardized patients or take a disciplined approach to using simulation for instruction and evaluation. © by the National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.