MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389896550 · doi:10.4085/1947-380x-22-049

Athletic Trainers’ Experiences Developing and Maintaining Contemporary Expertise

2023· article· en· W4389896550 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAthletic Training Education Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAthletic Training and Education
Canadian institutionsAthletic Edge Sports Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationCertificationContext (archaeology)Medical educationLikert scaleData collectionDescriptive statisticsAthletic trainingPsychologyBest practiceQualitative propertyScale (ratio)MedicinePolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context The Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education (CAATE) implemented new accreditation standards for professional education in 2020, requiring educators and preceptors affiliated with CAATE-accredited professional programs to identify an area of contemporary expertise. Although this requirement is imperative to ensure that educators and preceptors are exposing students to the breadth and depth of content areas in athletic training practice, little is known about how an area of contemporary expertise is developed and maintained. Objective To explore educators’ and preceptors’ experiences with developing and maintaining an area of contemporary expertise. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Web-based survey. Participants Of 449 athletic trainers (ATs), 347 (183 educators and 164 preceptors) indicated an identified area of contemporary expertise, completed the survey, and were included in the data analysis. Data Collection and Analysis A 16-item survey (10 demographic items, 1 Likert-scale item, and 5 open-ended questions) was used. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize participant demographics and familiarity with contemporary expertise. Data analysis of open-ended responses was guided by a 4-phase, consensual qualitative research process using a 3-person team. An external auditor confirmed data representation and accuracy. Results Familiarity with contemporary expertise and its impact on practice was shared, and participants identified various activities and resources accessible for ATs. However, challenges associated with developing and maintaining expertise and conflicts with current certification expectations were also identified. Conclusions Program administrators and employers should consider how they can best support the endeavors of educators and preceptors for developing and maintaining areas of contemporary expertise. Program administrators should evaluate programmatic approaches to assist preceptors with maintaining contemporary expertise. Additionally, as educators and preceptors become more familiar with contemporary expertise, the Board of Certification and the CAATE should provide guidance regarding the intent of continuing education, how it relates to contemporary expertise, and how stakeholders can achieve the objectives set forth by regulatory groups.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it