Andrew R Gallucci1, Jeffrey C Petersen2. 1. Departments of Health, Human Performance, & Recreation, Baylor University, Waco, TX. 2. Educational Administration, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Athletic training facilities have been described in terms of general design concepts and from operational perspectives. However, the size and scope of athletic training facilities, along with staffing at different levels of intercollegiate competition, have not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: To define the size and scope of athletic training facilities and staffing levels at various levels of intercollegiate competition. To determine if differences existed in facilities (eg, number of facilities, size of facilities) and staffing (eg, full time, part time) based on the level of intercollegiate competition. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Web-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Athletic trainers (ATs) who were knowledgeable about the size and scope of athletic training programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Athletic training facility size in square footage; the AT's overall facility satisfaction; athletic training facility component spaces, including satellite facilities, game-day facilities, offices, and storage areas; and staffing levels, including full-time ATs, part-time ATs, and undergraduate students. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 478 ATs (response rate = 38.7%) from all levels of competition. Sample means for facilities were 3124.7 ± 4425 ft2 (290.3 ± 411 m2) for the central athletic training facility, 1013 ± 1521 ft2 (94 ± 141 m2) for satellite athletic training facilities, 1272 ± 1334 ft2 (118 ± 124 m2) for game-day athletic training facilities, 388 ± 575 ft2 (36 ± 53 m2) for athletic training offices, and 424 ± 884 ft2 (39 ± 82 m2) for storage space. Sample staffing means were 3.8 ± 2.5 full-time ATs, 1.6 ± 2.5 part-time ATs, 25 ± 17.6 athletic training students, and 6.8 ± 7.2 work-study students. Division I schools had greater resources in multiple categories (P < .001). Differences among other levels of competition were not as well defined. Expansion or renovation of facilities in recent years was common, and almost half of ATs reported that upgrades have been approved for the near future. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides benchmark descriptive data on athletic training staffing and facilities. The results (1) suggest that the ATs were satisfied with their facilities and (2) highlight the differences in resources among competition levels.
CONTEXT: Athletic training facilities have been described in terms of general design concepts and from operational perspectives. However, the size and scope of athletic training facilities, along with staffing at different levels of intercollegiate competition, have not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: To define the size and scope of athletic training facilities and staffing levels at various levels of intercollegiate competition. To determine if differences existed in facilities (eg, number of facilities, size of facilities) and staffing (eg, full time, part time) based on the level of intercollegiate competition. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Web-based survey. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Athletic trainers (ATs) who were knowledgeable about the size and scope of athletic training programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Athletic training facility size in square footage; the AT's overall facility satisfaction; athletic training facility component spaces, including satellite facilities, game-day facilities, offices, and storage areas; and staffing levels, including full-time ATs, part-time ATs, and undergraduate students. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 478 ATs (response rate = 38.7%) from all levels of competition. Sample means for facilities were 3124.7 ± 4425 ft2 (290.3 ± 411 m2) for the central athletic training facility, 1013 ± 1521 ft2 (94 ± 141 m2) for satellite athletic training facilities, 1272 ± 1334 ft2 (118 ± 124 m2) for game-day athletic training facilities, 388 ± 575 ft2 (36 ± 53 m2) for athletic training offices, and 424 ± 884 ft2 (39 ± 82 m2) for storage space. Sample staffing means were 3.8 ± 2.5 full-time ATs, 1.6 ± 2.5 part-time ATs, 25 ± 17.6 athletic training students, and 6.8 ± 7.2 work-study students. Division I schools had greater resources in multiple categories (P < .001). Differences among other levels of competition were not as well defined. Expansion or renovation of facilities in recent years was common, and almost half of ATs reported that upgrades have been approved for the near future. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides benchmark descriptive data on athletic training staffing and facilities. The results (1) suggest that the ATs were satisfied with their facilities and (2) highlight the differences in resources among competition levels.
Entities:
Keywords:
personnel resources; physical resources; sports medicine resources
Authors: Lawrence W Judge; Jeffrey C Petersen; David M Bellar; Bruce W Craig; Erin L Gilreath Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ramona Backhaus; Hilde Verbeek; Erik van Rossum; Elizabeth Capezuti; Jan P H Hamers Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Lawrence W Judge; Jeffrey C Petersen; David M Bellar; Bruce W Craig; Michael P Cottingham; Erin L Gilreath Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Suzie Aparicio Ms; Cailee E Welch Bacon; John T Parsons; R Curtis Bay; Randy P Cohen; Terry DeZeeuw; Tamara C Valovich McLeod Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Christine M Baugh; Emily Kroshus; Bailey L Lanser; Tory R Lindley; William P Meehan Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Christine M Baugh; Zachary Y Kerr; Emily Kroshus; Bailey L Lanser; Tory R Lindley; William P Meehan Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Andrew Bratsman; Audrey Wassef; Christina R Wassef; Prathap Jayaram; J Bruce Mosely; Theodore B Shybut Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-09