Athletic training approved clinical instructors' reports of real-time opportunities for evaluating clinical proficiencies.

Context: Appropriate methods for evaluating clinical proficiencies are essential to ensuring entry-level competence in athletic training.

Objective: To identify the methods Approved Clinical Instructors (ACIs) use to evaluate student performance of clinical proficiencies.

Design: Cross-sectional design.

Setting: Public and private institutions in National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) District 4.

Patients Or Other Participants: Approved Clinical Instructors from accredited athletic training education programs in the Great Lakes Athletic Trainers' Association, which is NATA District 4 (N = 135).

Data Collection And Analysis: Participants completed a previously validated survey instrument, Methods of Clinical Proficiency Evaluation in Athletic Training, that consisted of 15 items, including demographic characteristics of the respondents and Likert-scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) regarding methods of clinical proficiency evaluation, barriers, educational content areas, and clinical experience settings. We used analyses of variance and 2-tailed, independent-samples t tests to assess differences among ACI demographic characteristics and the methods, barriers, educational content areas, settings, and opportunities for feedback regarding clinical proficiency evaluation. Qualitative analysis of respondents' comments was completed.

Results: The ACIs (n = 106 of 133 respondents, 79.7%) most often used simulations to evaluate clinical proficiencies. Only 59 (55.1%) of the 107 ACIs responding to a follow-up question reported that they feel students engage in a sufficient number of real-time evaluations to prepare them for entry-level practice. An independent-samples t test revealed that no particular clinical experience setting provided more opportunities than another for real-time evaluations (t(119) range, -0.909 to 1.796, P > or = .05). The occurrence of injuries not coinciding with the clinical proficiency evaluation timetable (4.00 + or - 0.832) was a barrier to real-time evaluations. Respondents' comments indicated much interest in opportunities and barriers regarding real-time clinical proficiency evaluations.

Conclusions: Most clinical proficiencies are evaluated via simulations. The ACIs should maximize real-time situations to evaluate students' clinical proficiencies whenever feasible. Athletic training education program administrators should develop alternative methods of clinical proficiency evaluations.