CONTEXT:: Diagnostic and return-to-play assessments of athletes with sport-related concussions (SRCs) have changed dramatically over the past decade. Currently, SRC assessment and management has taken a multifaceted approach, with new SRC measures being developed yearly. However, to date, no researchers have examined certified athletic trainers' (ATs') self-efficacy in assessing and managing a patient with an SRC. OBJECTIVE: : To examine the self-efficacy of ATs in assessing and managing athletes with SRCs, with a secondary purpose of examining job setting (high school and college). DESIGN: : Cross-sectional study. SETTING: : Web-based questionnaire. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:: A total of 94 ATs (high school setting = 54.3%, n = 51; collegiate setting = 45.7%, n = 43) completed an online survey, for a response rate of 9.2%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):: The survey contained 3 primary subsections: demographics, self-efficacy in assessing SRCs, and self-efficacy in managing SRCs. Possible self-efficacy ratings for SRC assessment and management in the survey ranged from 0 to 100. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to identify differences in the self-efficacy of high school and collegiate ATs in assessing and managing athletes with SRCs. RESULTS: : The self-efficacy of all 94 participants in their assessment of SRCs was 60.34 ± 14.5 and in their management of SRCs was 55.30 ± 14.1. Collegiate ATs reported higher self-efficacy in the assessment of SRCs using balance ( P < .001) and the King-Devick test ( P = .04), and their responses approached significance for vestibular-ocular motor screening ( P = .05). Additionally, their self-efficacy in the management of SRCs was greater using balance ( P < .001) and vestibular-ocular therapy ( P = .01) compared with high school ATs. CONCLUSIONS: : Athletic trainers had moderate self-efficacy regarding their assessment and management of SRCs. Collegiate ATs had higher self-efficacy in newer SRC assessment and management tools than high school ATs.
CONTEXT:: Diagnostic and return-to-play assessments of athletes with sport-related concussions (SRCs) have changed dramatically over the past decade. Currently, SRC assessment and management has taken a multifaceted approach, with new SRC measures being developed yearly. However, to date, no researchers have examined certified athletic trainers' (ATs') self-efficacy in assessing and managing a patient with an SRC. OBJECTIVE: : To examine the self-efficacy of ATs in assessing and managing athletes with SRCs, with a secondary purpose of examining job setting (high school and college). DESIGN: : Cross-sectional study. SETTING: : Web-based questionnaire. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:: A total of 94 ATs (high school setting = 54.3%, n = 51; collegiate setting = 45.7%, n = 43) completed an online survey, for a response rate of 9.2%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):: The survey contained 3 primary subsections: demographics, self-efficacy in assessing SRCs, and self-efficacy in managing SRCs. Possible self-efficacy ratings for SRC assessment and management in the survey ranged from 0 to 100. Multivariate analyses of variance were performed to identify differences in the self-efficacy of high school and collegiate ATs in assessing and managing athletes with SRCs. RESULTS: : The self-efficacy of all 94 participants in their assessment of SRCs was 60.34 ± 14.5 and in their management of SRCs was 55.30 ± 14.1. Collegiate ATs reported higher self-efficacy in the assessment of SRCs using balance ( P < .001) and the King-Devick test ( P = .04), and their responses approached significance for vestibular-ocular motor screening ( P = .05). Additionally, their self-efficacy in the management of SRCs was greater using balance ( P < .001) and vestibular-ocular therapy ( P = .01) compared with high school ATs. CONCLUSIONS: : Athletic trainers had moderate self-efficacy regarding their assessment and management of SRCs. Collegiate ATs had higher self-efficacy in newer SRC assessment and management tools than high school ATs.
Authors: Paul McCrory; Willem Meeuwisse; Jiří Dvořák; Mark Aubry; Julian Bailes; Steven Broglio; Robert C Cantu; David Cassidy; Ruben J Echemendia; Rudy J Castellani; Gavin A Davis; Richard Ellenbogen; Carolyn Emery; Lars Engebretsen; Nina Feddermann-Demont; Christopher C Giza; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Stanley Herring; Grant L Iverson; Karen M Johnston; James Kissick; Jeffrey Kutcher; John J Leddy; David Maddocks; Michael Makdissi; Geoff T Manley; Michael McCrea; William P Meehan; Shinji Nagahiro; Jon Patricios; Margot Putukian; Kathryn J Schneider; Allen Sills; Charles H Tator; Michael Turner; Pieter E Vos Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Steven P Broglio; Robert C Cantu; Gerard A Gioia; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Jeffrey Kutcher; Michael Palm; Tamara C Valovich McLeod Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Daniel J Corwin; Douglas J Wiebe; Mark R Zonfrillo; Matthew F Grady; Roni L Robinson; Arlene M Goodman; Christina L Master Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Kassandra C Kelly; Erin M Jordan; A Barry Joyner; G Trey Burdette; Thomas A Buckley Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Christine M Baugh; Emily Kroshus; Julie M Stamm; Daniel H Daneshvar; Michael J Pepin; William P Meehan Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jazmin O Harrell; Jessica E Morgan; Steven D Beck; Iustin C Scobercea; Julien S Baker; Allan Knox; Jorge M Serrador; Matthew J Rogatzki Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.996