Athletic Training Program Commitment: Four-Year Longitudinal Analysis of Behavioral Outcomes

Participants

To examine longitudinal changes in the commitment constructs throughout the academic program, 24 ATP students (male = 12, female = 12) participated. This cohort of students began the program as preservice students in May 2011 (n = 31) and graduated in May 2014 (n = 24). All participants represented 1 undergraduate accredited ATP program at a Division I university. The ATP offers 11 clinical experiences on campus, as well as 13 clinical experiences off campus. Upon completion of the ATP, these students ranged in age from 21–23 years, with a mean age of 21.50 years (SD = 0.59). To examine the predictive nature of commitment constructs to a behavioral outcome (ie, BOC exam score), 4 different cohorts of students completed measures during their final year in the ATP (n = 75). Of the 86 students that graduated from the ATP between 2012 and 2014, approximately 60% of the graduating students took the BOC exam during the April exam period, with 28% of the students taking the exam during the June exam period, and 12% of the graduating students choosing not to take the BOC exam.

Measures

Similar to Weiss and Neibert,^4–5 the measures used were created to assess commitment, enjoyment, benefits, costs, attractive alternatives, social constraints, and investments related to the ATP. All measures have demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in previous studies.^4–5 In order to make each measure context specific to the ATP, minor wording modifications were made to “in this ATP” or “athletic training.”

Procedures

For the first purpose of this study, ATP students from 1 cohort were assessed during each phase of their academic program from preservice student through graduation. For the past 4 years, these ATP students were recruited to complete the survey during 1 of their athletic training academic courses by a research graduate assistant. Following Institutional Review Board approval, students were invited to participate, provided the purpose of the study, and explained the study procedures. Only those students who agreed to participate and completed the informed consent form were asked to complete the questionnaire. Data were collected at 4 different times: Time 1 was in May 2011 (ie, as preservice students), then Time 2 was in November 2011 (ie, first-year students), Time 3 in November 2012 (ie, second-year students), and Time 4 in November 2013 (ie, third-year senior students). In addition, in order to determine if psychological commitment constructs could predict BOC scores, data was obtained from 4 different cohorts of graduating ATP students. Participants completed measures the November prior to taking the BOC exam in April or June.

Data Analysis

Reliability analyses were first conducted for all measures used in this study at Time 1–Time 4 (please see Weiss and Neibert^4–5 for previously reported α coefficients on all measures). Provided that all subscales achieved adequate reliability (Cronbach α criterion was set at 0.70), mean scores were calculated for each scale, and then correlations were conducted for Time 4 data. Then a series of repeated-measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted for each predictor of commitment and ATP commitment to determine significant changes in scores across time. If the ANOVA was significant, post hoc Bonferroni analyses were conducted to determine when the significant changes or differences in each construct occurred: between Time 1, Time 2, Time 3, and Time 4.

In order to determine if commitment constructs could predict BOC scores, a multiple regression was conducted using 4 different cohorts' commitment scores during their last year in the ATP. Thus, the criterion variable was the first BOC exam score for each student, and the predictor variables were graduating year scores on commitment, enjoyment, investments, attractive alternatives, costs, benefits, and social constraints. In addition, graduating ATP students were categorized into 2 groups: (1) successful first attempt on the BOC (n = 64), and (2) unsuccessful first attempt on BOC (n = 11). A multivariate analysis of variance was then conducted to compare these groups on the commitment and the predictors of commitment. A P value of .05 was set for all analyses.

Reliabilities

Cronbach α coefficients were calculated for all subscales for each time period. The specific α coefficients for each subscale for Time 1 and Time 2 were reported in Weiss and Neibert.^4,5 At Time 3 and Time 4, all subscales achieved adequate reliability with the exception of the perceived costs scale (α = .62). Evaluation of the intraclass correlations and item statistics revealed that the perceived costs scale failed to achieve an acceptable level of reliability at Time 4. Therefore, the decision was made to not include perceived costs in any further analyses. The Table has the means and standard deviations for all constructs at Time 1–Time 4 for this cohort of students.

Table Means ± Standard Deviations for All Constructs Time 1–Time 4

Abbreviations: ATP, athletic training program; NA, not available; SC, social constraints.

View Fullscreen

Purpose 1: Longitudinal Analysis of Commitment to Athletic Training Program

To examine changes in the commitment constructs in relation to ATPs, a series of repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted. The Figure shows the changes in the commitment constructs that differed significantly from 1 year to the next. For commitment to an ATP, there was a significant effect for time, Wilks λ = 0.55, F_3,18 = 4.83, P < .02, η² = 0.75, which is a large effect size. Post hoc Bonferroni tests revealed students reported significantly higher ATP commitment at Time 1 and Time 2 than at Time 3 or Time 4, but no significant differences emerged between Time 1 and Time 2 nor Time 3 and Time 4. That is, students had higher commitment to ATPs during their preservice and first year in the program compared to their last 2 years in the ATP.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Significant changes also occurred for enjoyment as students progressed through the ATP: Wilks λ = 0.50, F_3,18 = 5.92, P < .01, η² = 0.50. Post hoc Bonferroni analysis revealed that ATP students' enjoyment of the program was significantly lower at Time 3 as compared to Time 1 and Time 2, which were not different from each other. Several significant changes also occurred for attractive alternatives as students progressed through the ATP: Wilks λ = 0.41, F_3,18 = 8.77, P < .001, η² = 0.59. Students reported significantly higher attractive alternatives to their ATP at both Time 3 and Time 4 compared to Time 1 and Time 2. That is, ATP students found alternative activities to be more alluring than their current ATP during the last 2 years of their academic program as compared to their initial entry into the program.

For investments, the repeated-measures ANOVA was also significant: Wilks λ = 0.49, F_3,18 = 6.28, P < .05, η² = 0.51. However, post hoc Bonferroni analysis revealed that the only change in investments occurred from Time 1 to Time 2 or from preservice to first years in the ATP. Students' perceived investment in the ATP significantly increased from Time 1 to Time 2. With regards to the perceived benefits or perks related to being in an ATP, this cohort of students reported significantly higher perceived benefits at both Time 1 and Time 2 compared to Time 3 (Wilks λ = 0.60, F_3,18 = 4.06, P < .05, η² = 0.40). No other significant changes occurred in relation to perceived benefits throughout the ATP program.

Evaluation of changes in perceptions of social constraints (eg, perceived obligation to important others to continue in the ATP) from preservice students through to senior students revealed no significant differences. That is, these students did not perceive social constraints from parents, professors, classmates, or best friends any differently at the time of graduation than they did throughout their academic program.

Purpose 2: Using Commitment Constructs to Predict Board of Certification Scores

In order to assess the second purpose of this study, 4 different cohorts of graduating seniors' scores on the commitment constructs were used to predict BOC scores on the first attempt. A total of 75 seniors' scores were used in this analysis. The multiple regression was not significant: F_9,65 = 0.71, P = .70. Thus, none of the commitment constructs emerged as significant predictors of BOC exam scores.

Next, a comparison of the commitment constructs was conducted between students that: (a) successfully passed the BOC on the first attempt (n = 64), and (b) were unsuccessful on their first BOC attempt (n = 11). A total of 11 students had not yet taken the BOC exam. The multivariate analysis of variance was not significant: Wilks λ = 0.90, F_9,65 = 0.84, P = .58. Thus, students that passed the BOC on their first attempt did not differ from students that did not pass the BOC exam on their first attempt on any commitment constructs during their third year in the ATP.

Athletic Training Program Commitment over Time

In regards to our first purpose, changes over time occurred only with the psychological constructs related to commitment (ie, enjoyment, benefits, investments, attractive alternatives, and commitment). We found partial support for our hypothesis that the majority of changes would occur earlier in the program rather than later, with most differences emerging between the first year and second year in the program. These students' commitment declined from the time they were preservice students to when they were third-year students, with a significant decrease in commitment and enjoyment occurring from the first year (ie, Time 2) to the second year (ie, Time 3) in the program. Enjoyment also declined over time from preservice to second-year students in the program. These findings are similar to the findings of two prior studies by Weiss and Neibert^4,5 regarding enjoyment and commitment. Prior research showed significant differences in enjoyment of the ATP between different cohorts of students, with preservice students reporting higher enjoyment than both first- and third-year students.⁴ In a follow-up study, Weiss and Neibert⁵ further supported changes in enjoyment across cohorts by comparing recent ATP graduates, students continuing in an ATP, and students who discontinued the ATP (eg, switched academic majors). Third-year senior students reported significantly less enjoyment than did those who continued and discontinued ATP.

In regards to changes in commitment over time, Weiss and Neibert⁴ reported similar findings across 4 different cohorts of students with third-year students reporting lower commitment than preservice students. Thus, the findings of these 2 studies suggest that, rather than the desire and resolve to continue in the ATP increasing as students learn more skills and move closer to the ultimate goal of graduating, commitment to this endeavor actually declines. This decline has now been shown across cohorts and within the same cohort followed longitudinally. Declining commitment is probably directly related to the decline in enjoyment of ATP. Weiss and Neibert⁵ found that increases in enjoyment over time lead to concomitant increases in commitment, and in contrast, declines in enjoyment lead to declines in commitment. These findings support and are consistent with prior research in the sport domain with various athletic populations.¹²

The attractiveness of other activities also changed as these students progressed through their academic program. From the first year to the second year in the program, students reported significantly higher interest in other activities relative to the ATP and again showed an overall increase in attractive alternatives from the beginning of the program to the end. Similar to the findings of Weiss and Neibert⁴ in relation to attractive alternatives, preservice students' scores were significantly lower than third-year students' scores. In general, this increase in how alluring other activities seem is not surprising. Preservice students are eager to begin, excited about learning athletic training skills, and applying these new skills in a clinical setting; thus, few other activities seem nearly as interesting or compelling as athletic training. However, as time and demands progress and these students are in the “trenches” day in and day out, other activities may seem better than the demands related to being in an ATP.

Students' invested time, energy, and effort changed from Time 1 (ie, preservice students) to Time 2 (ie, first-year students). That is, students significantly increased the amount of time and effort they have invested in the ATP. However, after this initial increase in investments during that first year in the program, the students' perceptions of investments in the ATP stabilized and maintained to their senior year. Weiss and Neibert⁵ found that changes in investments from 1 year to the next predicted similar changes in commitment to ATP, with increasing investments being predictive of increasing commitment. This makes sense in that people tend to work harder, spend more time, and persist at endeavors in which they are committed.

The benefits or perks the students perceived to gain from involvement in the ATP also declined from preservice and the first year in the program to the second year. Similar to that of commitment and enjoyment, there tend to be substantial changes occurring for these students during their first year in the ATP. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these changes were negative in nature with commitment, enjoyment, and benefits declining from their first to their second year in the ATP.

So, the question becomes: What is occurring during the first year that leads to such negative declines? Several possible reasons exist for this negative shift in perceptions of the ATP from the first to the second year in the program. First, perhaps a “honeymoon phase” occurs during the transition from preservice student to first-year student in the ATP. Students are exhilarated and excited to begin a new major that is challenging and interesting. However, as the academic year continues and students must balance academic demands with clinical experiences, along with the many other demands placed on college students, the exciting and challenging change in their life may seem more like work. As much as ATPs attempt to prepare students for the program prior to entry, perhaps the reality of being an athletic training student is much tougher than these students anticipate. Second, first-year students may be entering the ATP with incredibly high perceptions of enjoyment and anticipation about being in the ATP because of the thrill of actually being accepted into the program, new-found team affiliation, and peer cohesion within their cohort of students. Perhaps after a year in the program, overall enjoyment has declined relative to where their “enjoyment” level began. Third, perhaps ATP students are experiencing some forms of burnout. In the sport realm, burnout is characterized by low perceived accomplishment, decreased desire to participate, and emotional and physical exhaustion.¹³ Additionally, prior research with sport participants has shown that athletes with lower perceptions of commitment, enjoyment, and benefits and higher perceptions of costs and investments also reported higher perceptions of burnout.¹⁴ This could very well be the case with ATP students. It makes sense that athletic training students could begin to feel burned out during their second year in the program as their clinical experiences increase in intensity, time commitment, and student responsibilities along with an increase in difficulty in coursework.

Interestingly, no significant changes emerged for this particular cohort of students on social influence constructs as they progressed from preservice students to graduates. Additionally, social support and social constraints from important others did not predict level of commitment or the desire to continue with ATP students.⁴ Despite the considerable research supporting the idea that social support from clinical preceptors, peers, and professors facilitates motivation and retention in ATP, this series of studies using the SCM as a theoretical framework does not support this contention.^4–5 These studies' various findings about the role of significant others on ATP motivation and retention could be due to differing methodologies and measures used to assess social influence.

Board of Certification Scores and Commitment

In regards to our second purpose, no support was found for our contentions that commitment scores would predict BOC score or that differences would emerge between those students who passed the BOC on their first attempt versus those who did not pass. Prior research^11,15 has examined the role of commitment constructs predicting actual committed behaviors in sport; however, these behaviors were related to continued involvement and training behaviors, such as intensity, effort, and attendance. Additionally, Weiss and Neibert⁵ found that students who stayed in the ATP, quit the ATP, and graduated from the ATP differed in their commitment to continue, the perceived negatives associated with an ATP, and how much they liked ATP. Based on these findings collectively, perhaps commitment constructs are better used for prediction of nonperformance-based behaviors, such as training or study behaviors, time spent on tasks, or continued participation in an activity rather than performance behaviors (eg, passing an exam, winning a competition).

Limitations

Due to the small sample size and the use of only 1 ATP, this study does have some limitations. Only first-time BOC scores were used to assess performance, but other behaviors could be assessed and may be better outcomes related to commitment constructs, such as time spent studying and preparing, preceptors' ratings of perceived effort of students, or grade point averages.

Future Research

In order to build on the current knowledge base exploring the desire and resolve to continue in ATPs, future research should explore research designs that use multiple ATPs from around the country. By implementing a longitudinal design with several students from various ATPs, the findings would be far more generalizable than those of the current study. Additionally, intervention studies should be conducted that focus on increasing the “positives” (ie, enjoyment, commitment, perceived benefits) and decreasing the “negatives” (eg, costs, attractive alternatives) associated with the ATP. By focusing on changing the climate or “environment” related to the ATP, not just how and when content is presented, ATPs may be able to increase the motivation and retention of their students.