Importance and Applicability of Approved Clinical Instructor Standards and Criteria to Certified Athletic Trainers in Different Clinical Education Settings

Cardinal Scholar

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Weidner, Thomas G.
dc.contributor.author Henning, Jolene M.
dc.date.accessioned 2020-09-09T12:53:09Z
dc.date.available 2020-09-09T12:53:09Z
dc.date.issued 2005-10
dc.identifier.citation Weidner, T. G., & Henning, J. M. (2005). Importance and applicability of approved clinical instructor standards and criteria to certified athletic trainers in different clinical education settings. Journal of Athletic Training, 40(4), 326–332. en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/handle/123456789/202347
dc.description.abstract Context: For optimal clinical education of athletic training students, Clinical Instructor Educators and program directors need to proactively select, train, and evaluate their Approved Clinical Instructors (ACIs). Objective: To assess the relative importance and applicability of ACI standards to certified athletic trainers employed in different athletic training clinical education settings. Design: Respondents rated and ranked the importance and applicability of the 7 standards presented by Weidner and Henning. Crucial standards to warrant dropping an ACI from the clinical education program were also listed. Setting: Mailed questionnaire. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 55 program directors invited their ACIs, representing different types of clinical settings, to complete the questionnaire. Of the 399 ACIs who responded, 30 (8%) worked in clinics, 50 (13%) in high schools, and 319 (79%) in colleges or universities. Main Outcome Measure(s): We compared the mean scores of the importance and applicability ratings and rankings by employment setting. Chi-square analyses were calculated to measure associations between employment settings and whether a standard was crucial. Respondents' comments were also assessed. Results: No significant differences were noted among employment settings for overall importance and applicability ratings. A difference was seen for only interpersonal relationships, with clinic and high school respondents giving this standard higher importance and applicability ratings than college/university respondents. No associations were shown between the settings and whether a standard was marked as crucial. The importance of a standard and barriers to implementing a standard (particularly ACI role strain) were the most common themes. Conclusions: The Weidner and Henning standards are considered to be important and applicable across a variety of athletic training clinical education settings. Legal and ethical behavior was considered the most crucial standard. The ACIs seemed to be encountering role strain in their dual roles as clinicians and clinical instructors, a problem warranting further investigation. en_US
dc.subject clinical instruction en_US
dc.subject Clinical Instructor Educator en_US
dc.subject athletic training education en_US
dc.title Importance and Applicability of Approved Clinical Instructor Standards and Criteria to Certified Athletic Trainers in Different Clinical Education Settings en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search Cardinal Scholar


Browse

My Account