ATHLETIC TRAINING EDUCATION JOURNAL
Q National Athletic Trainers’ Association www.nataej.org ISSN: 1947-380X DOI: 10.4085/090264
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Changes over Time in the Predictors of Athletic Training Program Commitment Windee M. Weiss, PhD, ATC; Peter J. Neibert, PhD, ATC Division of Athletic Training, School of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Services, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls Context: Understanding changes in athletic training program (ATP) commitment over time is crucial in retaining high-quality students in an ATP. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine if changes over time in ATP commitment determinants are related to actual changes in ATP commitment. Design: Longitudinal and cross-sectional survey. Setting: Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education-accredited ATP. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 99 male and female athletic training students participated in Time 1. A total of 71 (39% males, 61% females) of the original 99 participants participated in Time 2. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 years (mean ¼ 20.05, standard deviation ¼ 1.28). Data Collection and Analysis: Previously validated measures assessed students’ perceptions of enjoyment, attractive alternatives, investments, social constraints and support, benefits and costs, and commitment to ATP over time. Change scores for Times 1 and 2 were calculated for each predictor and commitment to ATP. Two multiple regression analyses determined which changes in the determinants of commitment predicted a change in commitment. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined the magnitude of change in the model variables over time. Lastly, a multivariate ANOVA compared who continued, graduated, and discontinued in the ATP. Results: Increases in investments and enjoyment predicted positive changes in commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. Additionally, decreases in classmates’ social constraints and increases in professors’ social constraints positively predicted changes in commitment. When exploring the magnitude of change in the model variables, only increases and decreases in enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2 were related to concomitant changes in commitment. Lastly, graduating students reported lower commitment and enjoyment and higher perceived costs than did those students who remained in the ATP and had not yet graduated. Conclusions: Athletic training program commitment predictors tend to change over time; ATP enjoyment is critical to continued motivation. Key Words: Longitudinal, motivation, enjoyment, social influence
Please address all correspondence to Peter J Neibert, PhD, ATC, Division of Athletic Training, School of Health, Physical Education and Leisure Services, University of Northern Iowa, Athletic Training Division, 2351 Hudson Rd, HPC 003D, Cedar Falls, IA 50614.
[email protected]. Full Citation: Weiss WM, Neibert PJ. Changes over time in the predictors of athletic training program commitment. Athl Train Educ J. 2014;9(2):64–71. Athletic Training Education Journal
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
64
Changes over Time in the Predictors of Athletic Training Program Commitment Windee M. Weiss, PhD, ATC; Peter J. Neibert, PhD, ATC INTRODUCTION Retaining high-quality students in an athletic training program (ATP) is critical for any accredited program. According to Dodge et al,1 students’ motivation, clinical and academic integration, and social support are key factors that enhance persistence within an ATP. Others2 have reported that ATP persistence is linked to positive interactions with faculty, clinical instructors, and peers. Additionally, absence of these quality interactions was detrimental to ATP persistence,3 and acceptance into the ATP social network was essential to integration and persistence in the program. The ATP environment, including cohesiveness between classmates, seems to influence persistence decisions.2 Neibert et al4 reported similar findings regarding the role that faculty and clinical instructors play in influencing students’ motivation and ATP persistence. Weiss and Neibert5 recently suggested students’ ATP commitment may be one way of exploring continued motivation and ATP retention. The sport commitment model (SCM), developed by Scanlan and colleagues,6 provides a theoretical framework with which to explore continued motivation as well as motivational behaviors. Commitment is the psychological desire and resolve to continue in a volunteer activity, such as an ATP, and higher commitment should be predictive of higher committed behaviors, such as energy, effort, intensity, and focus. According to the SCM, several factors play a role in the level and type of commitment. Perceptions of enjoyment, involvement opportunities, investments, and social support and social constraints are hypothesized to positively relate to commitment.6 Enjoyment is how much pleasure or ‘‘liking’’ a student has for her ATP experience, whereas involvement opportunities or benefits are the ‘‘perks’’ associated with being involved in an ATP, such as team affiliation, challenging courses, and learning new skills. Personal investments are what a student has put into her ATP, such as time, energy, and money, which could not be regained if ATP participation was discontinued. Social support represents feeling encouraged and unconditionally valued and supported by important others, including parents, classmates, and professors. Conversely, social constraints are feelings of obligation to these same important others to continue in an ATP. Perceived costs and attractive alternatives are hypothesized to have a negative influence on commitment.6,7 Costs are the downsides or negatives associated with being in an ATP. For example, some students may find the ATP to be too time consuming, boring, or difficult. Attractive alternatives are how alluring other activities are in comparison to one’s current major. Perhaps an ATP student may feel that a different major would better suit his or her goals or needs or that other majors may seem easier, which is more appealing. Weiss and Neibert5 applied the SCM to athletic training education. With a sample of 99 ATP students of varying Athletic Training Education Journal
years in one ATP they found that higher perceptions of benefits and investments and lower perceptions of attractive alternatives predicted higher ATP commitment. Interestingly, none of the social influence constructs; social constraints from parents, professors, classmates, or best friends; or social support satisfaction predicted ATP commitment. However, differences were found between students of varying years in the academic program. For example, preservice ATP students reported significantly higher commitment, perceived benefits, and enjoyment and lower perceived costs and attractive alternatives than did first-year and thirdyear students in the program. These differences in commitment constructs across cohorts suggest that commitment is dynamic and changes over time. Thus, perhaps ATP commitment and its predictors should be evaluated over time to truly understand the picture of commitment for ATP students. Within the realm of competitive sport, Carpenter and Scanlan8 and Carpenter and Coleman9 explored the dynamic nature of commitment and its predictors across a competitive season. With a sample of youth soccer players, from midseason to the end of the season, Carpenter and Scanlan8 revealed that players who reported increases in sport commitment also reported increases in involvement opportunities or benefits. In contrast, players who reported a decrease in sport commitment also reported concomitant decreases in enjoyment and involvement opportunities. Similarly, Carpenter and Coleman9 found that changes in sport commitment across a competitive season related to changes in enjoyment and involvement opportunities with high-level cricket players. These 2 studies provide support for the dynamic nature of sport commitment. Perhaps ATP commitment functions in many of the same ways as sport commitment. Weiss and Neibert5 revealed similarities across the 2 domains with regard to the predictors of commitment. Thus, it could be possible that commitment to ATP is dynamic and changes as students progress through the program. This information is important from a practical standpoint: if one can determine how commitment changes and which variables are responsible for increases and decreases in commitment, then ATPs could implement interventions and resources to facilitate increases in commitment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine if changes over time in ATP commitment determinants would relate to actual changes in ATP commitment. We hypothesized that changes in predictors would relate to changes in commitment. A secondary purpose was to explore behavioral ramifications of commitment among those students who continued in the ATP, those who had graduated, and those who had chosen to discontinue the ATP (eg, changed academic major) 1 year later.
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
65
METHODS Participants Athletic training students in one accredited ATP participated in this study. At the first data collection (Time 1), 99 students ranging in age from 18 to 24 years (mean ¼ 20.05, standard deviation ¼ 1.28) completed all measures designed to assess ATP commitment and its predictors. One year later (Time 2), 71 of the original 99 students (39% males, 61% females) completed all measures again. Of the remaining original 28 students, 18 had graduated from the ATP and 10 had switched majors and transferred out of the ATP. Of the 71 students who completed the second measurement, 26 were in their first year (sophomores), 22 in their second year, and 23 in their third and final year (seniors) in the ATP. The vast majority (98.6%) of students indicated they intended to take the Board of Certification (BOC) exam upon completion of their academic program, with 78.9% indicating that they were planning on pursuing a career as a certified athletic trainer. Additionally, the entire Time 2 sample indicated that they would pursue some additional academic program, such as a graduate degree in athletic training (n ¼ 24), physical or occupational therapy (n ¼ 36), or other postprofessional training in the medical field (n ¼ 10). Approximately 42% of the senior/third-year participants indicated that their plans after undergraduate graduation had changed from the time they had entered the ATP as a first year/sophomore. Measures The survey used to assess ATP commitment, enjoyment, benefits and costs, investments, attractive alternatives, social constraints, and social support satisfaction has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in past studies10 and was only slightly modified to include athletic training–specific language (ie, ‘‘in this athletic training program’’ or ‘‘athletic training’’). Athletic Training Program Commitment. Five questions assessed the students’ psychological commitment to the ATP.11 Items were answered using a Likert scale format, with scores ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very or a lot). Using a variety of samples, a values for the commitment measure ranged from .88 to .90.11,12 An example item was ‘‘How determined are you to keep going in your athletic training program?’’ Athletic Training Program Enjoyment. Scanlan et al6 developed 3 items to assess enjoyment. These were used to assess ATP students ‘‘liking of’’ and ‘‘pleasure derived from’’ being involved and pursuing an athletic training major. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from not at all to very much so. The enjoyment subscale has demonstrated strong reliability (a ¼ .84–.90) and validity in past research.13 Personal Investments. Athletic training program students completed 5 items on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 ¼ none at all to 5 ¼ a lot) designed to assess the time, energy, and effort that students have put into their ATPs.6 Previous research13,14 has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity for the investments scale, with a values ranging from .76 to .88. For example, students were asked, ‘‘How much of yourself have you put into athletic training?’’ Athletic Training Education Journal
Attractive Alternatives. The attractiveness of alternative activities in comparison to students’ ongoing academic program in athletic training was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 ¼ not at all true for me to 5 ¼ completely true for me. The students completed 5 questions assessing these alternatives, such as ‘‘I would like to do something else instead of athletic training.’’ With various samples, previous studies11,12 have shown adequate score reliabilities (a ¼ .70–.90) and validity. Perceived Benefits and Costs. Raedeke14 created measures designed to assess the perceived benefits (eg, perks, upsides) and perceived costs (eg, negatives, downsides) associated with sport participation. These items were modified to be specific to athletic training students. For benefits, examples included improving technical skills, achieving of goals, and feeling a sense of accomplishment. In contrast, some examples of costs included the following: ATP is too time consuming, too much pressure, and boredom. Students were asked to complete 4 items each assessing their perceived benefits and costs. Responses ranged from 1 ¼ not at all to 5 ¼ very much so on a 5-point Likert scale. An example benefits item was ‘‘Has your athletic training program been a positive experience for you?’’ An example perceived costs item was ‘‘To what extent are there unpleasant things associated with athletic training?’’ Past research11,12,14,15 has shown adequate reliability and validity for both the perceived benefits (eg, a ¼ .82) and costs (eg, a ¼ .79) scales. Social Constraints. Students completed 20 items designed to assess the perceived obligation to others to continue in the ATP. Four sources of social constraints were assessed: parents, classmates, best friends, and professors (5 questions per source). Items were completed using a 5-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (completely true for me). For example, students answered the following professor social constraint item: ‘‘I feel I have to be in athletic training to please my professors.’’ This scale has demonstrated adequate reliability (a ¼ .71–.82) and validity in past studies.7 Social Support. Satisfaction with social support from important others was assessed using 12 items created by Sarason et al16; these questions asked what type of specific social support and the level of perceived satisfaction with that social support was perceived by participants. For example, the students were asked to list people for the following question: ‘‘On whom can you really count to be dependable when you need help?’’ After students listed individuals, they then indicated their level of satisfaction with that type of social support, with responses ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). This measure16 has demonstrated strong test reliability ranging from .90 to .93.
Procedures At Time 1, after Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, current athletic training students at one institution were recruited to participate. At approximately the midpoint of the fall academic semester during one of their athletic training education courses, students were invited to participate, provided the purpose of the study, explained the study procedures, and asked to read and sign an informed consent.
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
66
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach a Values for the Athletic Training Program (ATP) Commitment Model Variables at Time 1 and Time 2a Time 1 (n ¼ 99) Predictor Variable
Mean 6 SD
ATP commitment ATP enjoyment Benefits Costs Attractive alternatives Investments Professor SC Parent SC Classmate SC Best friend SC SS satisfaction
4.52 4.23 3.99 2.83 2.13 4.58 1.89 2.05 1.65 1.46 5.64
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.54 0.67 0.60 0.78 0.89 0.50 0.76 0.88 0.68 0.67 0.52
Time 2 (n ¼ 71) a 0.83 0.85 0.81 0.82 0.93 0.85 0.76 0.81 0.71 0.77 0.9
Mean 6 SD 4.61 4.34 4.23 2.84 2.02 4.67 1.88 2.05 1.62 1.46 5.57
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.49 0.59 0.54 0.73 0.77 0.48 0.76 0.87 0.68 0.74 0.60
a 0.80 0.85 0.79 0.77 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.81 0.67 0.83 0.93
Abbreviations: SC, social constraints; SD, standard deviation; SS, social support, scored on a 6-point Likert scale. a Time 1 data were previously reported in Weiss and Neibert.5
If students agreed to participate, they completed the questionnaire. Average time to complete the questionnaire was about 15 minutes (ranging from 10 to 30 minutes). Similar procedures were used to recruit the ‘‘pre-service students’’; however, these students were recruited at the midpoint of their first course in the ATP, an introductory course offered during the May term of a summer session. For Time 2, the same students were asked to complete the same measures again. Time 2 data collection occurred approximately 6 months later for the pre-service students and 1 year later for all other students (ie, the following fall academic semester). Similar procedures were used to recruit participants at Time 2 as were used at Time 1. No new students who had not previously completed Time 1 measures were recruited at Time 2. Data Analysis Reliability analyses were conducted for all measures used in this study at both Time 1 and Time 2. If all subscales achieved adequate reliability (Cronbach a 0.70), change scores were calculated for each predictor and for commitment to ATP (Time 2 Time 1 ¼ change score). Correlation analyses were conducted using the change scores. In order to determine which changes in the determinants of commitment predicted a change in commitment, 2 multiple regression analyses were conducted. In the first regression, changes in enjoyment, investments, attractive alternatives, benefits, and costs were the predictor variables, and change in commitment was the criterion variable. In the second regression, changes in social constraints from parents, classmates, best friends, and professors and satisfaction with social support were the predictor variables, and changes in commitment was the criterion variable. To determine the magnitude of change in the model variables over time, a series of repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted. Each participant was classified on each of the significant predictors of commitment (as determined by the multiple regression analyses) as either increased, decreased, or remained unchanged from Time 1 to Athletic Training Education Journal
Time 2. The mean commitment scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were compared for these groups. Lastly, in order to explore behavioral differences, a multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) was conducted comparing students who had stayed in the ATP, those who graduated, and those students who had discontinued ATP (eg, changed their academic major). These 3 groups of students were compared in terms of their Time 1 scores on commitment, enjoyment, investments, attractive alternatives, benefits, costs, and social constraints. A P-value of .05 was set for all analyses. RESULTS Reliabilities Cronbach a values were calculated for all subscales at both Time 1 (a range from 0.71 to 0.93) and Time 2 (a range from 0.67 to 0.93), with all subscales achieving adequate reliability. For the investments subscale, 1 item was not included in the analyses at Time 1 and at Time 2 as a result of low intraclass correlations and item statistics (‘‘How much money have you put into your ATP?’’). At Time 1, removal of this item changed the a from 0.75 to 0.85 for the investments subscale, and at Time 2 this deletion changed the a from 0.69 to 0.85. Additionally, at Time 2, 1 item from the classmates social constraints subscale was omitted as a result of poor reliability: ‘‘My classmates would be disappointed with me if I were to quit ATP.’’ Removal of this item changed the a from 0.60 to 0.67. Table 1 has the means, standard deviations, and scale a values for all constructs at Time 1 and Time 2. Change Score Correlations Change scores were calculated for all the predictors and commitment to ATP (Time 2 Time 1 ¼ change score). These calculated change scores then represented the amount of change that had occurred for each predictor and commitment during the course of the past year in the ATP. Correlations were conducted for all change scores: enjoyment, benefits, costs, investments, attractive alternatives, social constraints, social support satisfaction, and ATP commitment. These correlations are presented in Table 2. Changes in benefits and
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
67
Table 2.
Correlations Among Change Scores on All Model Variables
Variables 1. D ATP commitment 2. D ATP enjoyment 3. D Benefits 4. D Costs 5. D Investments 6. D Attractive alternatives 7. D Professor SC 8. D Parent SC 9. D Classmate SC 10. D Best friend SC 11. D Social support satisfaction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
.57* .36* .19 .20 .47* .23 .24* .09 .04 .06
.58* .31* .02 .50* .08 .22 .12 .17 .19
.33* .16 .37* .03 .20 .03 .22 .12
.13 .31* .03 .08 .11 .00 .07
.08 .03 .21 .08 .31* .01
.03 .06 .12 .01 .08
.33* .50* .26* .04
.25* .34* .40
.30* .02
10
Abbreviations: ATP, athletic training program; D, change; SC, social constraints. * Significant relationships, P , .05.
enjoyment were both positively related to changes in commitment (r ¼ 0.36 and r ¼ 0.57, respectively). As expected, changes in perceived costs (r ¼ 0.31) and attractive alternatives (r ¼ 0.50) were negatively related to changes in enjoyment. Lastly, changes in benefits was positively related to changes in enjoyment (r ¼ 0.58). Predicting Changes in Commitment to ATP A multiple regression analysis was conducted to explore which constructs predicted changes in commitment. The change scores for enjoyment, benefits, costs, investments, and attractive alternatives were the predictor variables, and changes in ATP commitment was the criterion variable. The regression was significant [F(5,67) ¼ 8.46, P , .0001, R ¼ 0.64], with 41% of the variance accounted for by the predictor constructs. Only changes in investments (b ¼ .20) and changes in enjoyment (b ¼ .42) emerged as significant predictors of changes in commitment. Thus, positive changes or increases in enjoyment and investments predicted a positive change in ATP commitment from one year to the next. A second regression analysis determined the impact of social predictors on changes in ATP commitment. For this analysis, changes in social support satisfaction and perceived social constraints from parents, professors, classmates, and best friends were the predictor variables, and changes in commitment was the criterion variable. This regression was also significant [F(5,67) ¼ 2.89, P , .03, R ¼ 0.44], with 19% of the variance in changes in ATP commitment due to changes in social influence perceptions. Only changes in perceived social constraints from classmates and professors predicted changes in commitment. Changes in classmates’ social constraints (b ¼ .37) negatively predicted changes in commitment, whereas changes in professors’ social constraints (b ¼ .37) positively predicted changes in commitment. Thus, decreases in classmates’ social constraints and increases in professor social constraints predicted positive changes in commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. Magnitude of Change in the Model Variables Participants were classified based on how their scores changed over time. For each of the significant predictors of changes in commitment to ATP (ie, enjoyment, benefits, classmates’ social constraints, professors’ social constraints), the particAthletic Training Education Journal
ipants were grouped based on whether their scores increased, decreased, or remained the same from Time 1 to Time 2. Then, using a 1-way repeated-measures ANOVA, the mean commitment scores at Time 1 and Time 2 were compared across the newly formed groups (ie, increased, decreased, unchanged). Table 3 shows the commitment means and standard deviations for all 3 groups of students across the 4 significant predictors at Time 1 and Time 2. For enjoyment, 27 students decreased, 22 students increased, and 19 students reported the same enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2. For the students with a decline in enjoyment, the ANOVA was significant [Wilks k ¼ .83, F(1,26) ¼ 5.42, P , .03], with 17% of the variance accounted for. For students who reported a decline in enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2, there was a significant decrease in their level of ATP commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. With regard to students who experienced an increase in their enjoyment of ATP from Time 1 to Time 2, the ANOVA was also significant [Wilks k ¼ .74, F(1,21) ¼ 7.32, P , .02, effect size ¼ 26%]. Evaluation of the means revealed that positive changes in enjoyment (increased enjoyment) led to positive changes in commitment (increased ATP commitment). Lastly, for the students who reported similar enjoyment levels at both Time 1 and Time 2, the ANOVA was not significant [Wilks k ¼ .98, F(1,18) ¼ .41, P ¼ .53]. This suggests that those students who did not perceive a difference in their enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2 also did not report any changes in level of ATP commitment. For perceived investments, 17 students reported decreases, 29 students reported increases, and 22 students did not report any changes from Time 1 to Time 2. For all 3 groups, the ANOVAs were not significant: (1) increased investments group, Wilks k ¼ .99, F(1,28) ¼ .16, P ¼ .69; (2) decreased investment group, Wilks k ¼ .93, F(1,16) ¼ 1.21, P ¼ .29; and (3) unchanged investment group, Wilks k ¼ .99, F(1,21) ¼ .18, P ¼ .68. Thus, changes in investments, whether positive or negative, were not related to changes in commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. As was the case with investments, reported changes in classmates’ social constraints were not related to changes in ATP commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. The ANOVAs were not significant: (1) increased classmates’ social constraints group (n ¼ 25), Wilks k ¼ 1.00, F(1,24) ¼ .06, P ¼ .79; (2)
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
68
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Commitment Scores at Time 1 and Time 2 as a Function of Whether Scores on Predictors Declined, Were Unchanged, or Increased N
Time 1 Mean 6 SD
Time 2 Mean 6 SD
27 19 22
4.67 6 0.38 4.68 6 0.36 4.55 6 0.39
4.43 6 0.63* 4.73 6 0.34 4.76 6 0.31*
17 22 29
4.54 6 0.30 4.72 6 0.36 4.63 6 0.42
4.39 6 0.49 4.76 6 0.38 4.66 6 0.53
Classmate SC Declined Unchanged Increased
29 14 25
4.67 6 0.33 4.60 6 0.40 4.62 6 0.42
4.61 6 0.46 4.70 6 0.39 4.59 6 0.58
Professor SC Declined Unchanged Increased
27 11 30
4.76 6 0.31 4.51 6 0.36 4.57 6 0.42
4.60 6 0.50 4.67 6 0.36 4.63 6 0.53
Predictor Variable ATP enjoyment Declined Unchanged Increased Investments Declined Unchanged Increased
Abbreviation: ATP, athletic training program; SC, social constraints; SD, standard deviation.
decreased classmates’ social constraints group (n ¼ 29), Wilks k ¼ .99, F(1,28) ¼ .39, P ¼ .54; and (3) unchanged classmates’ social constraints group (n ¼ 14), Wilks k ¼ .96, F(1,13) ¼ .49, P ¼ .50. Therefore, regardless of whether there had been change or no change during the past year in perceived social constraints from classmates, this was not related to changes in ATP commitment. Lastly, changes in professor social constraints were evaluated in relation to changes in ATP commitment. The ANOVAs were not significant for students who (1) reported an increase in professor social constraints (n ¼ 30), Wilks k ¼ .98, F(1,29) ¼ .49, P ¼ .49; (2) reported a decrease in professor social constraints (n ¼ 27), Wilks k ¼ .91, F(1,26) ¼ 2.71, P ¼ .11; and (3) reported no changes in perceived social constraints (n ¼ 14), Wilks k ¼ .90, F(1,10) ¼ 1.16, P ¼ .31. Therefore, changes in perceived social constraints from professors were not related to changes in ATP commitment from Time 1 to Time 2. Differences in ATP Commitment and Its Predictors: Comparing Students Who Have Continued, Discontinued, and Graduated In order to explore differences between those students who had graduated from the ATP, those who continued in the ATP, and those who chose to discontinue the ATP, 2 separate MANOVAs were conducted. In the first analysis, these 3 groups of students were compared on the predictors (ie, enjoyment, investments, attractive alternatives, benefits, and costs) and commitment, whereas in the second analysis, the groups of students were compared on the social constructs (social constraints and social support satisfaction). For commitment and its predictors, the MANOVA was significant [Wilks k ¼ .75, F(12,182) ¼ 2.41, P , .01], with 25% of the variance explained by group membership. Graduated ATP Athletic Training Education Journal
students, continuing ATP students, and those who chose to discontinue ATP significantly differed on ATP commitment, enjoyment, and costs. Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that students who had graduated from the ATP in the past year reported lower commitment and enjoyment and higher perceived costs than did those students who remained in the major. No differences emerged between the students who had discontinued ATP and those who remained within the major or had recently graduated. Table 4 displays the means and standard deviations for all commitment constructs by group. The second MANOVA examining social influence constructs was not significant, suggesting that regardless of whether or not they continued in the major or were about to graduate, students did not differ at year 1 in terms of perceptions of social constraints from parents, professors, classmates, and best friends. DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to examine changes over time in commitment and its predictors within an ATP. Applicability of the sport commitment model to an ATP has recently been established5; thus, the next step was to determine if commitment to an ATP is similar to competitive sport commitment and dynamic over time.8,9,15,17 Additionally, we tried to capture the real-world ramifications of ‘‘in the head commitment’’ or psychological commitment by exploring differences between students who had different behavioral outcomes from Time 1 to Time 2. That is, we wanted to determine if students who were preparing for graduation held different perceptions than did students who either remained in the major or who had switched/changed majors from Time 1 to Time 2. Changes in the perceived perks or benefits associated with the ATP, as well as changes in how much enjoyment the students experienced, were related to changes in commitment. As the perceived pleasure, liking, and fun associated with ATP and the associated benefits increased, so did commitment. This finding is consistent with the results of previous research8 exploring changes in sport commitment over the course of 1 season. Additionally, declines in the perceived negatives associated with the ATP and how attractive other activities seemed in comparison were related to increased ATP enjoyment. Increases in the perceived benefits associated with the ATP were also related to increased enjoyment. Thus, consistent with theoretical predictions in terms of the SCM in the competitive sport domain,8,9 changes in the predictors lead to concomitant changes in commitment. Importantly, changes in the perceived downsides associated with ATP (eg, too time consuming, boring, stressful), how alluring alternative activities may seem in in comparison to the ATP (eg, different major, employment), and the perceived upsides or perks associated with the ATP (eg, challenging, achieving goals, team affiliation) were related to changes in enjoyment, which lead to changes in commitment. In regard to the dynamic nature of ATP commitment, several changes did occur during the 1-year time span. Increases in investments (eg, time, energy) and enjoyment predicted increases in commitment to the ATP. Similarly, increases in the perceived obligation to continue to professors and decreases in the perceived obligation to classmates predicted increases in commitment to the ATP. Carpenter and Scanlan8
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
69
Table 4. Statusa
Means and Standard Deviations (SDs) at Time 1 for All Constructs by Athletic Training Program (ATP)
Variables
ATP Students (n ¼ 71) Mean 6 SD
ATP commitment Enjoyment Investments Attractive alternatives Benefits Costs Professor SC Parent SC Classmate SC Best friend SC SS satisfaction
4.63 4.39 4.61 2.01 4.07 2.64 1.89 2.08 1.69 1.50 5.63
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Graduated ATP Students (n ¼ 18) Mean 6 SD
0.38a 0.51a 0.45 0.74 0.59 0.75a 0.78 0.91 0.70 0.70 0.57
4.16 3.70 4.56 2.57 3.74 3.34 2.06 2.13 1.56 1.51 5.59
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.80b 0.69b 0.55 0.97 0.50 0.58b 0.81 0.88 0.68 0.64 0.38
Discontinued ATP (n ¼ 10) Mean 6 SD 4.38 4.07 4.40 2.18 3.85 3.18 1.63 1.68 1.60 1.10 5.77
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.72 1.07 0.76 1.43 0.79 0.86 0.46 0.60 0.54 0.17 0.33
Abbreviations: SC, social constraints; SS, social support. Social support scored on a 6-point Likert scale, P , .05. a Superscripted lowercase letters indicate significant differences.
had similar findings with a sample of high school soccer players, in that changes in social constraints predicted changes in sport commitment; however, changes in perceived benefits also predicted changes in commitment. It makes intuitive sense that increases in investments and enjoyment should lead to positive changes in commitment. As students progress through the ATP, there is a steady increase in the investment demands related to increased difficulty of coursework and the time required and the more intense expectations of clinical field experiences; students also become more fully integrated into the program and profession.17 With enjoyment consistently emerging as the strongest predictor of sport commitment,6,7,12 from a theoretical standpoint it was not surprising that increases in how much pleasure students derive from participating in the ATP would lead to increased commitment. This could be attributed to feelings of integration and legitimization into the field of athletic training.1,18 When we explored the magnitude of change in the model variables over time, interestingly, only changes in enjoyment were related to changes in commitment, with students who reported an increase in enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2 showing an increase in ATP commitment. On the other hand, students who reported decreased enjoyment from Time 1 to Time 2 also reported decreased ATP commitment. Lastly, students who reported no change in their enjoyment during the last year also reported no change in their ATP commitment. These findings are identical to those of Carpenter and Scanlan8 with high school soccer players in regard to enjoyment. Despite changes in investments and social constraints from professors and classmates predicting changes in commitment, when we actually examined the mean magnitude of these changes, no significant differences emerged. Thus, these findings again support the theoretical and empirical evidence that enjoyment is critical to commitment in any activity.6,7,12 From a practical standpoint, if we wish to enhance commitment to ATP and the athletic training profession as a whole, increasing enjoyment, pleasure, and fun is essential. This requires examination of the sources of enjoyment based on prior research19 in the sport domain. According to Scanlan and colleagues, the significant predictors of sport enjoyment Athletic Training Education Journal
include positive team interactions and support, positive coach support, satisfaction with performance, and effort and mastery. Thus, if these same predictors of enjoyment were applied to an ATP, then perhaps programs should emphasize cohesion among ATP students, prioritize faculty support, reward and recognize effort and mastery, and provide multiple methods by which students can demonstrate competence. Lastly, perceptions of commitment were compared among students who continued in the ATP, those who changed majors, and those who graduated from the ATP between Time 1 and Time 2. Somewhat surprisingly, the students who were currently in their third year of the ATP and preparing for graduation at Time 1 reported significantly lower commitment and enjoyment and higher perceived costs than did students in the other 2 groups. Students who switched majors or quit the ATP, on the other hand, did not differ from those who stayed in the ATP. As was the case with the findings of Weiss and Neibert,5 with regard to cohort differences on the commitment constructs, the students preparing for graduation had more negative perceptions of the ATP than did others. This could be due to the additional demands that many potential graduates deal with during their final year in an ATP: senior sport responsibilities, graduate and professional school applications, interviews, deadlines, seeking out employment opportunities, and studying for the BOC exam. Limitations The current study does have some limitations as a result of the small sample size and the use of only 1 ATP. Additionally, the only behavioral measure considered in this study was stay/ leave behavior of students in the ATP. Other measures of behavior, such as effort, grades, time studying, or passing of the BOC, may be better indicators of psychological commitment. Lastly, this study only explored changes over 1 year, which may not allow for the dynamic nature of commitment and its predictors to be completely revealed. Future Research Future research exploring retention and motivation in the ATP should continue to use the SCM as a theoretical
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
70
framework. Alternative behavioral outcomes should also be explored to test the predictive value of commitment, such as passing the BOC, grade point average, acceptance into graduate or professional schools, employment or graduate assistantships obtained, or even the amount of time spent studying. Future research could include a longitudinal analysis to track ATP students’ progress from pre-service through graduation.
8. Carpenter PJ, Scanlan TK. Changes over time in the determinants of sport commitment. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1998;10:356–365. 9. Carpenter PJ, Coleman R. A longitudinal analysis of elite youth cricketers’ commitment. Int J Sport Psychol. 1998;29:195–210. 10. Raedeke TD. Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1997;19:396– 417.
Conclusions The predictors of commitment to an ATP tend to change over time, with enjoyment a critical factor for continued motivation and desire to reach completion. However, these data showed a decline in enjoyment and commitment and an increase in perceived negatives associated with ATP for those students preparing to graduate. This should be of concern if these recent graduates are entering the work force as certified athletic trainers with such declining perceptions of the positive aspects related to athletic training. References 1. Dodge TM, Mitchell MF, Mensch JM. Student retention in athletic training education programs. J Athl Train. 2009;44(2): 197–207. 2. Bowman TG, Dodge TM. Factors of persistence among graduates of athletic training education programs. J Athl Train. 2011;46(6):665–671. 3. Racchini J. Enhancing student retention. ATT. 2005;10(3):48–50. 4. Neibert P, Huot C, Sexton P. Career decisions of senior athletic training students and recent graduates of accredited athletic training education programs. Athl Train Educ J. 2010;5(3):101– 108. 5. Weiss WM, Neibert PJ. Predictors of commitment to athletic training education. Athl Train Educ J. 2013;8(1–2):3–9. 6. Scanlan TK, Simons JP, Carpenter PJ, Schmidt GW, Keeler B. The sport commitment model: measurement development for the youth sport domain. J Sport Exerc. 1993;15:16–38.
Athletic Training Education Journal
7. Weiss WM, Weiss MR, Amorose AJ. Sport commitment among competitive female athletes: test of an expanded model. J Sport Sci. 2010;28:423–434.
11. Weiss WM, Weiss MR. Attraction- and entrapment-based commitment among competitive female gymnasts. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25:229–247. 12. Weiss WM, Weiss MR. Sport commitment among competitive female gymnasts: a developmental perspective. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2007;78:90–102. 13. Raedeke TD, Warren AH, Granzyk TL. Coaching commitment and turnover: a comparison of current and former coaches. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73:73–86. 14. Raedeke TD. Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1997;19:396– 417. 15. Weiss WM, Weiss MR. A longitudinal analysis of commitment among competitive female gymnasts. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2006; 7:309–323. 16. Sarason I, Sarason B, Shearin E, Pierce G. A brief measure of social support: practical and theoretical implications. J Soc Pers Relat. 1987;4(4):497–510. 17. Weiss WM. Longitudinal analysis of sport commitment types: does injury play a role? Int J Sport Psychol. 2011;42:565–585. 18. Klossner J. The role of legitimation in the professional socialization of second-year undergraduate athletic training students. J Athl Train. 2008;43(4):379–385. 19. Scanlan TK, Carpenter PJ, Lobel M, Simons JP. Sources of enjoyment for youth sport athletes. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1993;5: 275–285.
j Volume 9 j Issue 2 j April–June 2014
71
