A study on the self-efficacy and competence of approved clinical instructors on Athletic Training educational competencies

The purpose of this research was to survey allied healthcare and medical practitioners who were approved clinical instructors (ACIs) of an accredited Athletic Training Education Program to gain insight into their self-efficacy and competence on the acute care of pulmonary injuries and illnesses category in the 5 th edition of the Athletic Training educational competencies. The conceptual framework guiding this study was grounded in the contributions of ACIs\u27 self-efficacy beliefs and cognitive competence were evaluated to assess if the Athletic Training clinical educator are confident and knowledgeable on the new Athletic Training Competencies. Major findings of the study were that the ACIs\u27 self-efficacy ratings were high, and the self-efficacy ratings were statistically (p \u3c .05) beneficial to specific subcategory competence in the acute care of pulmonary injuries and illnesses. When using 70% as the minimal accepted percentage to be considered competent the ACIs\u27 responses led to the analysis of inadequate competence in immediate emergent management (62.2%), transportation (65.2%), and education (50.2%) on the acute care of pulmonary injuries and illnesses, and there were specific Competency subcategories in which ACIs\u27 responses led to the analysis of inadequate competence. The demographic variables, gender and years of education, had statistical relationships with the ACIs\u27 competence on the acute care of pulmonary injuries and illnesses. In conclusion, institutions that host ATEPs, the ATEP administrators and the ATEPs\u27 associated ACIs should use this research to note that improvisational education or spontaneous teaching are not always efficient for clinical education. Even though clinical educators have high self-efficacy on areas of professional competence, this does not translate to actual competence. So Athletic Training students may not be receiving adequate evaluation and assessment of their clinical and cognitive knowledge, which could ultimately translate into patient care and in worse care scenario, the death of a patient. So those individuals who have the most opportunity to aid in the evolution of professional knowledge have the most responsibility to cultivate more resources and more accountability to the universities, ATEPs, and ACIs