OBJECTIVES: To assess the type and amount of clinical supervision athletic training students received during clinical education. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was conducted with a questionnaire developed specifically for this study. SUBJECTS: Head athletic trainers from National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I (28), Division II (34), and Division III institutions (30). Thirty-four represented Commission on the Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs-accredited athletic training education programs, 20 represented athletic training programs in Joint Review Commission on Athletic Training candidacy, and 35 offered the internship route. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were computed. Three sets of chi-square analyses were completed to assess associations among athletic training students with first-responder qualifications, program and institution characteristics, certified athletic trainer medical coverage of moderate- and increased-risk sports, and clinical supervision. A trend analysis of students' class standing and time spent in different types of clinical supervision was also completed. The alpha level was set at <.05. RESULTS: Most of the athletic training students (83.7%), particularly in accredited programs, had first-responder qualifications. More than half of the head athletic trainers (59.8%) indicated that athletic training students were authorized to provide medical care coverage without supervision. A minimal amount of medical care coverage of moderate- and increased-risk sports was unsupervised. No significant difference between the size of the education or athletic program and type and amount of clinical supervision was noted. Freshman athletic training students spent more time in direct clinical supervision and less time in unsupervised experience, but the opposite was true for senior students. CONCLUSIONS: Athletic training students are being utilized beyond appropriate clinical supervision and the scope of clinical education. Future research should employ methods using nonparticipant observation of clinical instructors' supervision of students as well as students' own perceptions of their clinical supervision.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the type and amount of clinical supervision athletic training students received during clinical education. DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was conducted with a questionnaire developed specifically for this study. SUBJECTS: Head athletic trainers from National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I (28), Division II (34), and Division III institutions (30). Thirty-four represented Commission on the Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs-accredited athletic training education programs, 20 represented athletic training programs in Joint Review Commission on Athletic Training candidacy, and 35 offered the internship route. MEASUREMENTS: Descriptive statistics were computed. Three sets of chi-square analyses were completed to assess associations among athletic training students with first-responder qualifications, program and institution characteristics, certified athletic trainer medical coverage of moderate- and increased-risk sports, and clinical supervision. A trend analysis of students' class standing and time spent in different types of clinical supervision was also completed. The alpha level was set at <.05. RESULTS: Most of the athletic training students (83.7%), particularly in accredited programs, had first-responder qualifications. More than half of the head athletic trainers (59.8%) indicated that athletic training students were authorized to provide medical care coverage without supervision. A minimal amount of medical care coverage of moderate- and increased-risk sports was unsupervised. No significant difference between the size of the education or athletic program and type and amount of clinical supervision was noted. Freshman athletic training students spent more time in direct clinical supervision and less time in unsupervised experience, but the opposite was true for senior students. CONCLUSIONS: Athletic training students are being utilized beyond appropriate clinical supervision and the scope of clinical education. Future research should employ methods using nonparticipant observation of clinical instructors' supervision of students as well as students' own perceptions of their clinical supervision.