Objective: To present athletic training educators with guidelines for developing coherent athletic training education programs.

Background: Coherent athletic training education programs are marked by a clear relationship between program goals and learning activities. These learning activities follow a logical progression that facilitates knowledge and skill development and enhances professional preparation. Coherent programs also work to socialize athletic training students in purposeful and positive ways. We have identified fourteen indicators of coherence in teacher education programs that are applicable to athletic training education. Both teacher certification and athletic training programs are similar in that they serve as professional preparation for their respective fields and have practical application (i.e., clinical education or student teaching practicum) components.

Description: Coherence begins with a clearly defined mission statement. The academic faculty and clinical staff/instructors strive to achieve the mission and goals of the athletic training education program. Next, the coursework must follow a logical progression to allow students to make connections between subject matter. Clinical learning experiences should compliment academic learning experiences. In addition, clinical education experiences should follow students' skill levels and needs. Finally, the students themselves are encouraged to interact with their fellow students and form learning communities.

Clinical Advantages: Coherent education programs have the most potential to produce athletic trainers who are competent and well socialized into professional practice. We believe graduates of such programs are properly prepared to be certified athletic trainers.

Objective: To address the need for a more definitive approach to critical thinking during athletic training educational experiences by introducing the clinical reasoning model for critical thinking.

Background: Educators are aware of the need to teach students how to think critically. The multiple domains of athletic training are comprehensive and complex. Thinking is the fundamental connection between didactic and experiential components. Therefore, clinical thinking must be viewed as a critical part of experiential education in athletic training.

Description: Research from educational journals in medicine, physical therapy and athletic training, as well as relevant texts, were searched to investigate the theoretical and practical underpinnings of clinical thinking models. Definitions, applications, and the historical underpinnings of the clinical thinking processes in allied health were reviewed and presented to highlight the need for athletic training educators to better appreciate the thinking processes of students and practitioners. Practical suggestions for the implementation of clinical reasoning in athletic training are presented.

Application: Athletic training requires clinically based decision-making and problem solving skills. Medical educators recognize differences between the thinking of novice and expert practitioners, and have investigated the nature of clinical cognition as part of their formal curriculum. As AT's professional scope and credibility expand, the process of teaching, fostering, and evaluating clinical reasoning is paramount for AT educators.

Objective: To establish the validity and reliability of an online assessment instrument's items developed to track educational outcomes over time.

Design and Setting: A descriptive study of the validation arguments and reliability testing of the assessment items. The instrument is available to graduating students enrolled in entry-level Athletic Training Education Programs (ATEPs).

Methods: Validity was established with the creation of a national advisory board of Athletic Training educators. Construct validity was established with the creation of a test blueprint to guide the development of items for the knowledge exam. Internal reliability estimates for each domain were calculated. A single scale reliability analysis was conducted using all items. An item analysis was conducted by calculating difficulty and discrimination indexes for each item.

Results: The internal reliability estimates ranged from .23 to .44 suggesting that individual domain scores for this draft of the instrument were not reliable. The single scale total score reliability however, produced an alpha = .84 suggesting a high level of reliability. Difficulty index scores ranged from .03 to .99 (mean = .74 ± .25). Discrimination index scores ranged from −.01 to .41 (mean = .21 ± .09).

Conclusions: While the individual domain reliability was low, the overall single scale score is acceptable. Difficulty and discrimination index scores allowed the removal and revision of items to increase the overall reliability of the test bank.

Objective: To determine employers' (clinic based ATs) perceived satisfaction of the academic preparation of entry-level ATs, and to identify perceived inadequacies of the (ATEP) curriculum.

Design and Setting: Athletic trainers employed in clinical setting completed an online survey instrument.

Subjects: One-hundred-four ATs serving in the NATA defined clinical employment setting who had supervised an entry-level employee.

Measurements: Participants completed an online survey evaluating their employee's didactic and clinical preparation for entry-level employment on a 4-point scale and 34 statements on a 5-point Likert scale to ascertain their satisfaction of the employee's academic preparation across the content areas comprising the BOC domains of knowledge and skills. Statistical analysis was conducted using a Cronbach's Alpha to evaluate internal consistency (.79–.88) of the scales.

Results: Only 104/1716 (6%) of employers responded to the survey. These employers rated the didactic and clinical preparation of their entry-level employees as adequate (75%, N=77), and there were no apparent deficiencies in employee preparation when comparing across content areas. Employers did report that interpersonal skills, as opposed to technical skills, were an area that could be expanded upon.

Conclusions: Employers perceived that ATEP's are adequately preparing students, both academically and clinically, for entry-level positions within the profession, although they should provide students more opportunities for interpersonal communications with coaches, parents, and the medical community.

Context: We describe methods of sampling the widely-studied, yet poorly defined, population of accredited athletic training education programs (ATEPs).

Objective: There are two purposes to this study; first to describe the incidence and types of sampling methods used in athletic training education research, and second to clearly define the accredited ATEP population.

Design and Setting: Literature review and web-based information search

Participants: Accredited programs as of January 2008

Measurements: We conducted a literature review with the following limits: (1) articles with keyword “accreditation,” (2) articles utilizing accredited ATEP population, (3) articles published in the Journal of Athletic Training and the Athletic Training Education Journal, and (4) articles published since 2000. We categorized articles based on their sampling method(s). We conducted a web-based search of all accredited programs as of January 2008 and collected demographic data including: state/private affiliation, university enrollment, cost of attendance, National Athletic Trainers' Association district, and athletic affiliation.

Results: Our literature search identified 37 articles. Twenty-seven (73%) articles did not clearly state their sampling methods. Twenty-two (59%) of the articles used some sort of random sampling method. The remaining 15 articles (41%) used some sort of nonrandom sampling method. As of January 2008 there were 360 accredited programs.

Conclusions: The following generalizations can be made: (1) The majority of articles used a random sampling method. (2) The vast majority of programs were undergraduate. (3) A majority of programs are affiliated with state institutions.

The following is a brief review of selected topics discussed on the NATA Think Tank Educator Forum. Only NATA members can access the archived messages and discussions. To view this forum, go to http://forum.nata.org/thinktanks (login required).

Our charge is to monitor education-related journals (i.e., Journal of Nursing Education, Journal of Higher Education, etc.) and identify articles which are the most applicable to our readers. We will provide brief synopses of the articles plus potential applications to AT education. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions, comments, or suggestions for this recurring feature or if you would like to review an article that you feel is particularly applicable to athletic training educators. I would also like to hear about implementations you have made from the concepts we present in this feature. – cm