NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACHES' KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES REGARDING PREVENTION AND RECOGNITION OF EXERTIONAL HEAT STROKE

    Authors

    A. S. Valdes; J. R. Hoffman; M. H. Clark;J. R. Stout

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    J. Strength Cond. Res.

    Keywords

    certifications; football deaths; training practices; training safety; CASE SERIES; ILLNESS; TRAINERS; Sport Sciences

    Abstract

    Valdes, AS, Hoffman, JR, Clark, MH, and Stout, JR. National collegiate athletic association strength and conditioning coaches' knowledge and practices regarding prevention and recognition of exertional heat stroke. J Strength Cond Res 28(11): 3013-3023, 2014The purpose of this study was to assess and determine content knowledge of National Collegiate Athletic Association Strength and Conditioning Coaches (SCCs) regarding prevention and recognition of exertional heat stroke (EHS) and to determine whether the type of professional certification is an indicator of enhanced content knowledge. A questionnaire was e-mailed to 1305 SCCs and was used to assess SCC's EHS knowledge in the areas of extrinsic risk factors (ERF), intrinsic risk factors (IRF), recognition of EHS (R), and general training safety knowledge (TSK). The 319 SCC participants who responded were separated into 4 groups based on certification: Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialists (CSCS) (116), Strength and Conditioning Coach Certification (SCCC) (46), combined CSCS/SCCC (62), or no certification (NC) (95). Only 2.2% of the total coaches surveyed scored 90% on the total score, whereas 47% earned a score 59%. When comparing across certifications, NC scored significantly lower (p 0.05) on total score, and the IRF and TSK constructs than CSCS, SCCC, and CSCS/SCCC. CSCS/SCCC coaches performed significantly better on the total score than SCCC (p = 0.047), whereas a trend toward a higher score (p = 0.085) was seen in CSCS compared with SCCC. CSCS coaches and the combined CSCS/SCCC certifications scored significantly higher (p < 0.000) than NC in the ERF and R constructs. In conclusion, SCCs seemed to lack essential knowledge to prevent or recognize EHS in each of the factors assessed. It is recommended that consideration be given to include EHS prevention and recognition competencies as part of the professional preparation and certification requirements for SCCs.

    Journal Title

    Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

    Volume

    28

    Issue/Number

    11

    Publication Date

    1-1-2014

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    3013

    Last Page

    3023

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000344918200004

    ISSN

    1064-8011

    Share

    COinS