Athletic Trainers’ Experiences Developing and Maintaining Contemporary Expertise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".