Valdes Anna S, Hoffman Jay R, Clark Margaret H, Stout Jeffrey R
Institute of Exercise Physiology and Wellness, Sport and Exercise Science Program, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Nov;28(11):3013-23. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000365.
The 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.
本研究的目的是评估并确定美国国家大学体育协会体能训练教练(SCCs)关于劳力性热射病(EHS)预防和识别方面的知识内容,并确定专业认证类型是否是知识内容增强的一个指标。向1305名SCCs发送了一份调查问卷,用于评估SCCs在外部风险因素(ERF)、内部风险因素(IRF)、EHS识别(R)和一般训练安全知识(TSK)等领域的EHS知识。319名回复的SCC参与者根据认证情况分为4组:认证体能训练专家(CSCS)(116名)、体能训练教练认证(SCCC)(46名)、CSCS/SCCC联合认证(62名)或无认证(NC)(95名)。在接受调查的所有教练中,只有2.2%的总得分≥90%,而47%的得分≤59%。在比较不同认证时,NC在总分、IRF和TSK结构方面的得分显著低于CSCS、SCCC和CSCS/SCCC(p≤0.05)。CSCS/SCCC教练在总分上的表现显著优于SCCC(p = 0.047),而与SCCC相比,CSCS有得分更高的趋势(p = 0.085)。在ERF和R结构方面,CSCS教练和CSCS/SCCC联合认证的得分显著高于NC(p < 0.000)。总之,SCCs在评估的每个因素中似乎都缺乏预防或识别EHS的基本知识。建议考虑将EHS预防和识别能力纳入SCCs专业准备和认证要求的一部分。