The Frequency of Effective Clinical Instructor Behavior in the Clinical Field Experience Setting: Implications for Developing a Model of Systematic Supervision for Athletic Training

Date of Award


Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)


Human Performance and Recreation

First Advisor

Benito Velasquez

Advisor Department

Human Performance and Recreation


Recent changes in athletic training education have brought the component of clinical education to the forefront. Literature regarding clinical instructor behavior has adequately identified effective behaviors in clinical education (Curtis, Helion, & Domsohn, 1998; Dunley & Wolf, 1992; Emery, 1984; Foster & Leslie, 1992; Jarski, Kulig, & Olson, 1990; Laurent & Weidner, 2001; Stemmans & Gangstead, 2002). However, limited research exists regarding systematic observation of clinical instructor behaviors particularly in the clinical field experience setting. Thus, the aim of this research study was to: (1) Investigate the frequency and the nature of clinical instructor behaviors utilizing the Clinical Instructor Effectiveness Instrument 2 (CIEI2 ); (2) Investigate the outcome of the Prescriptive Feedback Conference; (3) Record the duration of learning opportunities of the athletic training student; and (4) Gain theoretical support for a model of systematic supervision for athletic training. The CIEI2 was developed to evaluate six different behavior categories by recording actual occurrences and assessing the nature of clinical instructor behaviors. In addition, the CIEI2 set the stage for documenting the learning opportunities engaged by the athletic training student. This allowed the researcher to differentiate the duration of time students spent actively engaged in athletic training professional roles. Approved Clinical Instructors (N = 17) from four Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP) accredited athletic training education programs participated in this study. Each clinical instructor was observed on two separate occasions with the Prescriptive Feedback Conference serving as the treatment. This study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in the 10-minute average and the total performance score (TPS). These findings suggest that the Prescriptive Feedback Conference had a positive influence on both the frequency and construct of clinical instructor behavior. Further, athletic training students ( N = 34) spent the majority of their time in purposeful observation and, more importantly, 56% of their time actively learning. In addition, students from National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) institutions spent the least amount of time waiting during the 34 observations. The development of the CIEI2 and the implementation of the Prescriptive Feedback Conference allow athletic training educators the opportunity to provide clinical instructors with specific feedback about their clinical teaching performance. The positive findings from this research provide substantial evidence for the inclusion of the CIEI 2 and the Prescriptive Feedback Conference in a model of systematic supervision for athletic training.