Identification of essential skills for entry level athletic trainers in South Louisiana: A Delphi study

Abstract

Context: Entry-level athletic trainers enter the workforce with the skills taught to them by athletic training programs (ATPs) using the Competencies developed by our accrediting body.

Objective: These competencies are developed using data collected from athletic trainers in the field with no input from the consumers of athletic training services.

Design: This study used a 3-round Delphi questionnaire.

Setting: Secondary schools located South Louisiana.

Participants: Six experts in the field of athletic training.

Data Collection and Analysis: In round 1, participants were first asked to identify individual skills within predetermined skill categories created from the Competencies and existing research. In rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked and rated their responses from round 1. Using Delphi methodology with qualitative and quantitative analysis, a Duty-Task List (DTL) was created from the data, which identified the essential skills for entry-level athletic trainers.

Results: Ranking of the skill categories produced four tiers, the top tier consisting of skill categories developed from the Competencies. The bottom tier consisted of two items, both from the Competencies: use of evidence-based medicine in practice and therapeutic interventions. Data further revealed communication, its many different forms, was the most important individual skill for entry-level athletic trainers.

Conclusions: The Delphi methodology used in this study was once again shown to be as effective as DACUM in producing an industry-supported DTL. In doing so, the participants gave a clear conceptualization of the essential skills needed as an entry-level athletic trainer, while also identifying some skills missing from the Competencies. Consideration should be given to the consumers of athletic training services when the next version of the Competencies is created. The athletic trainers on the panel consistently ranked higher skill categories from the Competencies, while the administrators on the panel ranked the non-competency skill categories higher. Additionally, there is still some resistance to increased use evidence in practice, which may be further proof of the chasm between what is considered desirable by clinical setting athletic trainers and academic setting athletic trainers.