MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402076448 · doi:10.4085/1947-380x-24-001

Lecture-Based Instruction on Salary Negotiation for Professional Athletic Training Students: An Educational Technique

2024· article· en· W4402076448 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAthletic Training and Education
Canadian institutionsAthletic Edge Sports Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletic trainingSalaryNegotiationMedical educationPsychologyProfessional developmentCollege athleticsAthletesPedagogyMedicineSociologyPolitical sciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Low salary is a frequently cited reason for attrition from the athletic training profession. Researchers have determined that athletic trainers (ATs) entering the first hiring process, usually newly credentialed graduates of professional athletic training programs (ATPs), are the least likely to negotiate, resulting in lowered earning potential across their careers. It is necessary to instruct athletic training students on the importance of salary negotiation before the completion of their professional preparation. Objective Describe a lecture-based approach to include salary negotiation content into ATPs. Background Employing constructivist learning theory, didactic lecture content with applicable strategies for salary negotiation is sufficient for students to understand which strategies can be used to negotiate for a higher salary during the hiring process. Description Before the didactic experience, second-year graduate ATP students self-assessed their knowledge of, familiarity with, and comfort in negotiating during the hiring process. A single 3-hour lecture on negotiation was provided to students that included reasons to negotiate, financial ramifications of not negotiating, strategies for determining appropriate salaries, example language to use, and a discussion of timing to initiate negotiations. Students reassessed their knowledge, familiarity, and comfort within 1 week of receiving the didactic content. Six months after ATP completion, students reported whether they negotiated during their first hiring process. Educational Advantages Although not required for professional ATPs, the inclusion of content specific to salary negotiation in the hiring process increases future ATs’ understanding of negotiation processes and their comfort level in initiating negotiations earlier in their career. Conclusion Students’ understanding of negotiation during the hiring process and comfort with attempting negotiation increased following the lecture-based technique. If ATs can achieve higher earnings earlier in their career, they can increase their lifetime earning potential, and they may find the profession to be more financially sustainable, thus decreasing professional attrition.

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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.382 · 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