{"id":7016,"date":"2020-05-01T06:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-05-01T11:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=7016"},"modified":"2020-03-31T10:24:41","modified_gmt":"2020-03-31T15:24:41","slug":"survey-return-rates-for-athletic-trainers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/survey-return-rates-for-athletic-trainers\/","title":{"rendered":"Survey Return Rates for Athletic Trainers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Authors: <\/strong>Robert Bradley, Scott Bruce<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corresponding Author:<\/strong>
Robert Bradley, EdD, LAT, ATC
PO Box 910
State University, AR. 72467
rbradley@astate.edu<\/a>
870-972-3766<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Robert Bradley is the program\ndirector of the master of athletic training program at Arkansas State\nUniversity. He is an assistant professor in the College of Nursing and Health\nProfessions and the curriculum coordinator for the Arkansas Athletic Trainers\nAssociation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scott Bruce is a research faculty member for the master of athletic training program at Arkansas State University.  He is an associate professor in the College of Nursing and Health Professions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Survey Return Rates for Athletic Trainers<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Purpose:<\/strong>\nTo determine which method of survey distribution produces higher return rates.\nResearchers ask athletic trainers to complete surveys to gather data using\nelectronic and non-electronic means. \nThere are no publications looking at the return rates and the method of\ndistribution of survey instruments. This article seeks to determine which\nmethod of survey distribution produces higher return rates<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methods:<\/strong>  The writer searched research articles published between\nJanuary 2008 and December 2017 within the Journal of Athletic Training and the\nAthletic Training Education Journal with the term \u201csurvey\u201d. Eligible studies\nincluded only those surveys where the intended audience were certified athletic\ntrainers and found within the natajouranls.org website. The writer excluded\narticles that did not indicate how they distributed the survey, did not report\ntheir return rates or failed to provide the number of participants in their\nsample.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results:<\/strong> Between 2008 and 2017, 81 publications included data\nobtained using a survey. 87.65% of surveys were sent via email or electronic\nform and 13.2% with a mailed survey. Electronically send surveys (e-mails) were\nexceedingly popular, the return rates for electronic surveys was 34.21% while\nnon-electronically (mailed) surveys had a return rate of 66.9%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions:<\/strong> When researchers send surveys to certified athletic\ntrainers, those athletic trainers tend to respond in larger numbers (increased\nreturn rate) if those surveys were sent through the mail, than with emails.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Application in sport:<\/strong> Any attempt to garner information from athletic trainers either for research or marketing purposes will find that athletic trainers respond at higher rates with mailed surveys, than with electronically sent surveys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Key Words:<\/strong>\nsurvey, return rates, email, mail<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When a researcher makes the decision to distribute a\nsurvey to potential subjects, there are usually two means of distribution,\neither by mail or by phone. \nThe earliest researched use of a telephone used for survey\ndistribution started in 1954 (4).  \nSince 1986 with the introduction of the fax then eventually the\ninternet, there has been growth in the use of electronic surveys in the forms\nof internet sites, e-mails, and faxes (5,8,12,18). Researchers started\nusing e-mail as a means for the distribution because of the decreased costs and\nhopeful increased return rates (12).  Even though e-mails are faster, some\nresearchers liked the availability of the fax as a means of survey distribution\n(5). Despite the introduction of the fax and e-mails, researchers have not yet\nabandoned telephone and letter surveys. Over the decades the return rate for\nhealth care professionals has slowly been in decline to less than 50% (5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One question the researcher needs to consider\nis the method of survey distribution. The decision as to whether or not to send\nthe surveys via an electronic method or postal can be attributed to the cost\nand turnaround time. Electronically sent surveys did show to have faster\nturnaround times (6,7). However, surveys sent mailed shown better return rates\n(1,2,3,6,15,19,22). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nSheehan\u2019s article the authors made an effort to understand the return rates of\nphysicians for the specific purpose of determining what were best methods of\nincreasing return rates (20).  Markwell\nand Wainer, Raheel and Kujan found that the best incentives to encourage\nresponse rates for physicians included one or more of the following; money,\nsurveys with short questions, or mailing the survey with a self-addressed\nstamped envelope (SASE).  Even with these\nincentives several authors found that the response rates for physicians was\nbelow 40% (14,17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To date, there have been no publications showing\nthe methods used for the distribution of surveys and the return rates of survey\ninstrument distributed to subjects identified as certified athletic trainers. The\npurpose of this literature review study was to examine, the method of survey\ndistribution, the response rates, survey topic, and the number of surveys per\nyear between the years of 2008 and 2017. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

METHOD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Articles\nbetween January 2008 and December 2017 were searched within the natajournals.org\nwebsite for the term \u201csurvey\u201d and then narrowed to include publications listed\nas \u2018research articles\u2019.  This yielded 244\narticles.  The search was further\nnarrowed to include only those where the intended sample were certified athletic\ntrainers. Articles were excluded if they did not indicate how they distributed\nthe survey, did not report their return rates or failed to provide the number\nof participants in their sample. Data gathered from each article included the\nnumber of participants in the sample, the number of surveys returned, and\nreturn rates.  Data were analyzed using\nIBM SPSS Statistics, Version 25 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY). An independent t-test was\nperformed to compare return rates between mailed and electronically sent\nsurveys. The alpha level was set at (p <\/em>\u2264\n= 0.05). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From\n2008 through 2017, 81 survey-related article were published.  Ten of the 81 (13.2%) published articles used\na mailed or non-electric form for survey distribution and collected with 71 of\nthe 81 (87.65%) distributed and collected via electronic means (i.e., e-mail). Sixty-seventy\nof the 81 articles (82.7%) were published in the Journal of Athletic Training<\/em> while 14 of the 81 (17.3%) were\npublished in the Athletic Training\nEducation Journal<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nsample size varied greatly, the largest sample was 20,365(16) while\nthe smallest was 17(10) and a mean subject size of 2068.2 (\u00b1 3505.9)\nand a median of 1000 subjects.  For\nelectronic\/emailed surveys the average sample size was 2293.94 subjects.  For non-electronic\/mailed surveys the average\nsize of subjects was 465.6.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Response\nrates for all surveys ranged from 2.2%(9) to 82.6%(13)\nwith a mean of 37.99% for all surveys and a median of 33.9%.  Electronic surveys reported an average return\nrate of 34.21% while non-electronic\/mailed surveys averaged 66.9% for an overall\naverage return rate of 37.99% \u00b119.73 (Table 1,2,3,4).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n
Method of Distribution<\/strong><\/td>\n Return Rate mean\/SD<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Non-electronic\/mailed<\/td>\n 64.8%\/\u00b116.26%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Electronic\/emailed<\/td>\n 34.21%\/\u00b117.13%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Return Mean<\/td>\n 37.99%\/\u00b119.73%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Table 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n
n = 81<\/strong><\/td>\n Mean (\u00b1sd)<\/strong><\/td>\n Median<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Number Distributed<\/td>\n 2068.22 (\u00b13505.9)<\/td>\n 1000<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Number Returned<\/td>\n 582.04 (\u00b11276.9)<\/td>\n 232<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Return Rate<\/td>\n 37.99% (\u00b119.73)<\/td>\n 33.92<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Table 3<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n
 <\/td>\n Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances<\/strong><\/td>\n Independent t-test<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
 <\/td>\n F<\/td>\n Sig.<\/td>\n t<\/td>\n df<\/td>\n Sig. (2-tailed)<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Equal variances assumed<\/td>\n 0.211<\/td>\n 0.647<\/td>\n 5.325<\/td>\n 79<\/td>\n 0.000<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Equal variances not assumed<\/td>\n  <\/td>\n  <\/td>\n 5.542<\/td>\n 11.997<\/td>\n 0.000<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

Table 4<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n
Statistics<\/strong><\/td>\n Number Distributed<\/strong><\/td>\n Number Returned<\/strong><\/td>\n Return Rate<\/strong><\/td>\n Return Rate %<\/strong><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
N<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n 81<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Mean<\/td>\n 2068.22<\/td>\n 596.04<\/td>\n .380<\/td>\n 38%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Median<\/td>\n 1000<\/td>\n 249<\/td>\n .339<\/td>\n 33.90%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n
Std. Deviation<\/td>\n 3505.965<\/td>\n 1298.41<\/td>\n .1973231<\/td>\n 19.73%<\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n

These\nreturn rates almost mirror a similar study performed with physicians as the\ntarget responder (21).  In this study,\nphysicians responded to online surveys 33.7% of the time while 66.3% responded\nto mailed surveys.  From the different\nwaves of surveys sent, the response rate for mailed reached as high as 75.9%<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmean for non-electronic surveys was 64.8% with electronic surveys mean at 34.2%.\nAn independent t<\/em>-test was\nstatistically significant (p<\/em><\n0.001). Standard deviation for the non-electronic was 16.26 and electronic at\n17.13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While electronic surveys were seven times more popular\nthan non-electronic surveys, there did not appear to be a tendency toward higher\nreturn rate. Not included in this research were attempts by the authors to use\npre-notification or follow up communications with their method of survey\ndistribution, as technique to increases return rates (11).  It is possible that the lower return rates\nfor electronic surveys was due to the influences that affects return rates such\nas length of survey, lack of pre-notification, lack of follow up or lack of\ninterest in the topic (18).  The data\nshow that the subject size for mailed surveys was smaller than the subject size\nfor surveys distributed via electronic means. \nIt is possible that the decision for the method of the delivery of the\nsurvey depended upon the desired sample size. \nAdditionally this decision may have occurred because of the potential\ncost of mailing surveys through the postal service. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The average sample size for electronic surveys was 2293\nwhile mailed subject pools was much lower at 466. The financial cost of the\nmailing surveys may have been the cause of the discrepancy between these two\nvariables.  It is quite possible that\neach author looked at their specific populations and their budget and made\ntheir decision whether to mail or e-mail base on those concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Athletic trainers\nare sent many surveys from fellow athletic trainers or researchers hoping to\ngain insight into the daily practices, wisdom, feelings and observation of\npracticing certified athletic trainers. \nTo date no one has examined the return rates of surveys based on the\nmethod of survey contact.  Data from this\nstudy demonstrates that electronic surveys are twice as popular as mailed\nsurveys but produce a lower return rate (34.21% electronic, 64.8% mailed).  The lower return rates from electronic\nsurveys may be contributed to a lack of pre-notification, lack of follow up\ne-mails, lack of interest or lack of personal attention.  Further longitudinal research needs to be\ndone to examine how each of these factors affects the rate of return on\nelectronic surveys.  If the goal is to\nachieve a higher return rate, these data suggests distributing a survey through\nthe mail, rather than an electronically distributed method would be the\npreferred method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People wanting to communicate with athletic trainers must consider the athletic trainers preferred method of communication.   This data can indicate that athletic trainers prefer the kinesthetic activity and tactile feel of paper in their hands to that of a mass email when responding to attempts of research or marketing.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are no financial conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Aitken C., Power R., Dwyer R. (2008). A very low response rate in an online survey of medical practitioners. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health<\/em>, 32<\/em>(3), 288\u2013289. <\/li>
  2. Cho Y. I., Johnson T. P., VanGeest J. B. (2013). Enhancing surveys of health care professionals: A meta-analysis of techniques to improve response. Evaluation & the Health Professions<\/em>, 36<\/em>(3), 382\u2013407. doi:10.1177\/0163278713496425<\/li>
  3. Couper M. P. (2011). The future of modes of data collection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75<\/em>(5), 889\u2013908. doi:10.1093\/poq\/nfr046<\/li>
  4. Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in Telephone Survey Nonresponse over the Past Quarter Century. Public Opinion Quarterly,<\/em> 69<\/em>(1), 87-98. doi:10.1093\/poq\/nfi002 <\/li>
  5. Dickson, J. P., & Maclachlan, D. L. (1996). Fax Surveys: Return Patterns and Comparison with Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research,<\/em> 33<\/em>(1), 108. doi:10.2307\/3152017 <\/li>
  6. Dykema J., Jones N. R., Piche T., Stevenson J. (2013). Surveying clinicians by web: Current issues in design and administration. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 36<\/em>(3), 352\u2013381. doi:10.1177\/0163278713496630<\/li>
  7. Fan W. M., Yan Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26<\/em>, 132\u2013139. doi:10.1016\/j.chb.2009.10.015<\/li>
  8. Fricker, S. (2005). An Experimental Comparison of Web and Telephone Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly,<\/em> 69<\/em>(3), 370-392. doi:10.1093\/poq\/nfi027<\/li>
  9. Hamson-Utley, J. J., Martin, S., & Walters, J. (2008). Athletic Trainers and Physical Therapists Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Psychological Skills Within Sport Injury Rehabilitation Programs. Journal of Athletic Training,<\/em> 43<\/em>(3), 258-264. doi:10.4085\/1062-6050-43.3.258<\/li>
  10. Hazelbaker, C. B. (2013). Perceived Skills and Abilities Required by Athletic Trainers in Hospital and Clinical Management Positions: A Delphi Study. Journal of Athletic Training,<\/em> 48<\/em>(1), 87-91. doi:10.4085\/1062-6050-47.6.2<\/li>
  11. Hembroff, L. A., Rusz, D., Rafferty, A., Mcgee, H., & Ehrlich, N. (2005). The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Advance Mailings in a Telephone Survey. Public Opinion Quarterly,<\/em> 69<\/em>(2), 232-245. doi:10.1093\/poq\/nfi021<\/li>
  12. Kellerman, S. (2001). Physician response to surveys A review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,<\/em> 20<\/em>(1), 61-67. doi:10.1016\/s0749-3797(00)00258-0<\/li>
  13. Manspeaker, S. A., & Hankemeier, D. A. (2017). Athletic Trainers Current Knowledge and Envisioned Use of Foundational Evidence-Based Practice Concepts. Athletic Training Education Journal,<\/em> 12<\/em>(2), 121-133. doi:10.4085\/1202121<\/li>
  14. Markwell A. L., Wainer Z. (2009). The health and wellbeing of junior doctors: Insights from a national survey. Medical Journal of Australia, 19<\/em>(18), 441\u2013444.<\/li>
  15. McLeod C. C., Klabunde C. N., Willis G. B., Stark D. (2013). Health care provider surveys in the United States, 2000-2010: A review. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 36<\/em>(1), 106\u2013126. doi:10.1177\/0163278712474001<\/li>
  16. Pike, A. M., Pryor, R. R., Vandermark, L. W., Mazerolle, S. M., & Casa, D. J. (2017). Athletic Trainer Services in Public and Private Secondary Schools. Journal of Athletic Training,<\/em> 52<\/em>(1), 5-11. doi:10.4085\/1062-6050-51.11.15<\/li>
  17. Raheel S. A., Kujan O. B. (2016). The opinion and response of health professionals associated with academics about the research design and methods: A study. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry<\/em>, 6<\/em>(2), 154\u2013160. doi:10.4103\/2231-0762.178745<\/li>
  18. Schaefer, D.R., & Dillman, D.A. (1998).  Development of a Standard E-mail Methodology.<\/em>   Revision of a paper presented at the 53rd<\/sup> Annual Conference of the American Association of Public Opinion Research.  St. Louis, Mo.<\/li>
  19. Scott, A., Jeon, S., Joyce, C. M., Humphreys, J. S., Kalb, G., Witt, J., & Leahy, A. (2011). A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Medical Research Methodology,<\/em> 11<\/em>(1). doi:10.1186\/1471-2288-11-126<\/li>
  20. Sheehan, K. (2001).  E-mail Survey Response Rates: A Review<\/em>.  Retrieved from University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communications http:\/\/jcmc.indiana.edu\/vol6\/issue2\/sheehan.html<\/li>
  21. Taylor, T., & Scott, A. (2018). Do Physicians Prefer to Complete Online or Mail Surveys? Findings From a National Longitudinal Survey. Evaluation & the Health Professions,<\/em> 42<\/em>(1), 41-70. doi:10.1177\/0163278718807744<\/li>
  22. Yan W., Cheng T., Scott A., Joyce C., Humphreys J., Kalb G. (2011). Data survey. Medicine in Australia: Balancing employment and life. Australian Economic Review, 44, 102\u2013112.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Authors: Robert Bradley, Scott Bruce Corresponding Author:Robert Bradley, EdD, LAT, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[904],"tags":[1585,1588,1586,1587],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-1Pa","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":8478,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/financial-budgets-of-collegiate-athletic-training-in-south-carolina-a-five-year-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":0},"title":"Financial Budgets of Collegiate Athletic Training in South Carolina: A five-year review","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Bradley, Robert & Bruce, Scott L. College of Nursing and Health Professions, Arkansas State University Corresponding Author: Robert Bradley, EdD, LAT, ATCPO Box 910Arkansas State University, AR. 72467rbradley@astate.edu870-972-3766 Robert Bradley is the program director of the master of athletic training program at Arkansas State University. He is an assistant\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Leadership"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Bradley-Table-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2342,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ratios-of-certified-athletic-trainers-to-athletic-teams-and-number-of-athletes-in-south-carolina-collegiate-settings\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":1},"title":"Ratios of Certified Athletic Trainers\u2019 to Athletic Teams and Number of Athletes in South Carolina Collegiate Settings","date":"March 16, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Robert Bradley1, Ed.D, ATC, SCAT*. Fred Cromartie2, Ed.D*, Jeff Briggs3 PhD.*, Fred Battenfield4, Ph.D.*, Jon Boulet5 Ph.D*. 1*\u00a0Assistant Professor of Sport management\u00a0at North Greenville University,\u00a0Tigersville,\u00a0South Carolina,\u00a029680 2*\u00a0Director of Doctoral Studies at the United States Sports Academy, Daphne, Alabama, 36526 3* Professor of Sport Management\u00a0at North Greenville University, Tigersville, South\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/03\/Table1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":336,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/desirable-qualities-attributes-and-characteristics-of-successful-athletic-trainers\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":2},"title":"Desirable Qualities, Attributes, and Characteristics of Successful Athletic Trainers \u2013 A National Study","date":"April 16, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Timothy J. Henry, Robert C. Schneider, and William F. Stier Jr. - The State University of New York at Brockport Abstract In an effort to determine the importance of desirable qualities, attributes and characteristics necessary for the success of interscholastic athletic trainers a Likert-type scale survey was mailed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6012,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/athletic-training-in-popular-sports-films\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":3},"title":"Athletic Training in Popular Sports Films: More than khakis, a polo, and a roll of tape?","date":"September 6, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Dr. Lindsey H. Schroeder, Dr. Alana N. Seaman Corresponding Author: Lindsey H. Schroeder Ed.D., LAT, ATC, CES 601 S. College Rd. Wilmington NC, 28403-5956 schroederl@uncw.edu 910-962-7188 Dr. Lindsey Schroeder is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington in the Athletic Training Program. She is a licensed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":361,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-comparision-of-athletic-training-program-financial-resources\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":4},"title":"A Comparision of Athletic Training Program Financial Resources","date":"January 8, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Robert Bradley, United States Sports Academy Abstract Athletic departments have budgets for each team. Included within the athletic department master budget includes an athletic training budget. However, unlike sports programs, the athletic training budget goes not towards its own needs, but the needs of the sports teams. The size of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":60,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/development-of-an-athletic-training-curriculum-for-universities-in-south-korea\/","url_meta":{"origin":7016,"position":5},"title":"Development of an Athletic Training Curriculum for Universities in South Korea","date":"February 12, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jon Yeansub Lim, Ed.D., C.S.C.S. The purpose of this study was to develop a competency based undergraduate sports medicine curriculum for universities in the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.). The survey questionnaire used in this study was derived from five performance domains and universal competencies of the 1995 Role\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7016"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7016"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7016\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7021,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7016\/revisions\/7021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}