Date of Award

2013

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Psychology

Abstract

CONTEXT: Athletic trainers' duties include facilitating rehabilitation, preventing injuries, emergency preparation and situation management. Emotional intelligence (EI) is critical in management, specifically positive patient outcomes. High stress situations necessitates practitioners evaluate the emotions of others to seek the most efficacious outcome. To date, the impact of athletic trainer EI on effectively and safely performing responsibilities has not assessed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the EI of certified athletic trainers as determined by the Self-Report EI Test (SREIT) (Cronbach's α=0.90). DESIGN: Descriptive research study. SETTING: Internet Survey. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 1000 certified athletic trainers working in a variety of settings across the United States. We had 73 respondents for a 7.3% response rate assuming all invitations were delivered. INTERVENTION: We obtained approval from the Indiana State University IRB prior to study initiation. The NATA e-mailed potential participants a link to our survey and a request for completion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey consisted of 38 questions, including 4 demographic questions (gender, age, level ofEducation, and athletic training setting) and 1 open ended question requesting the participant to define EI. The SREIT constituted the majority of the survey consisting of 33 5-point Likert scale questions regarding EI. We calculated the total scale (possible range: 33-165) and sub-scale scores for perception of emotion (possible range=10-50), managing individuals own emotions (possible range=9-45), managing others' emotions (possible range=8-40) and utilization of emotions (possible range=6-30). RESULTS: Participants varied in gender, employment setting and age suggesting we identified a diverse population of respondents. We did not identify any significant differences (t 71 =-0.698, p=0.487) between males (126.612.9) and females (128.914.0) on the SREIT total score (127.9±13.4). We did not observe any significant differences between age categories: 21-20y (129.412.8), 31-40y (125.513.7), 41-50y (125.315.7), 51-60y (129.4413.4). We did not identify any significant differences between athletic trainers in the college/university (128.715.0), clinic (127.210.4), secondary school (126.4 13.8) or various other settings (129.513.7). We did not identify any statistical differences among our comparison groups on the subscales: perception of emotion (38.3±5.9), managing individuals own emotions (36.3±4.2), managing others' emotions (30.8±4.0) and utilization of emotions (22.6±2.8). CONCLUSIONS: Several studies have used the SREIT to measure EI in various populations (university students, parents, teaching interns, employees, managers, etc.). The athletic trainers in our investigation performed slightly higher than the average scores in the other 33 investigations (mean=126.1, range=117.5-142.5) and on-par with studies (n=8) only involving full-time adult employees or managers (mean=127.8, range=121.1-142.5). Both the males and females in this study performed higher than those noted in the literature (7 studies: males=120.7, females=126.2). Athletic trainers demonstrate comparable levels of EI, but do not demonstrate any significant differences among genders, ages, or employment settings.

Download

Share

COinS