Search

Physical education programs in colleges/universities have been called on to provide students with opportunities to develop an appreciation for, and increase participation in, lifetime physical activity. Higher Education Physical Activity Programs (HEPAPs) have evolved over the past 100 years in response to changing societal and institutional expectations. The purpose of this article is to celebrate the long history of HEPAPs and recommend innovative strategies for program development that will maintain their position as a valued aspect of campus life. After tracing the historical roots and trends of HEPAPs, the authors suggest (a) adopting a public health perspective, (b) applying theoretical models as a framework for program development, (c) focusing on meaningful learner engagement, and (d) employing learner-centered instructional approaches. Within these overall themes, specific recommendations for program improvement are provided, including the use of alternative content areas, model-based instruction, universal design, instructional technology, and professional development for faculty/staff.

Objective: The trend of utilizing evidence-based practice (EBP) in athletic training is now requiring clinicians, researchers, educators, and students to be equipped to both engage in and make judgments about research evidence. Single-case design (SCD) research may provide an alternative approach to develop such skills and inform clinical and pedagogical practices. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature related to SCD and its potential contributions to EBP in athletic training. Data Source(s): We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and Google Scholar using terms ''single case design,'' ''single subject design,'' ''within subjects,'' and combined search terms of ''single case design AND athletic training, AND allied health, AND medicine, AND nursing.'' Data Synthesis: Textual support for the use of SCD in athletic training and a brief review of literature pertaining to: general features, strengths, limitations, and design options commonly associated with the use of SCD. Conclusions: Use of SCD in allied health professions is limited, with fewer studies in athletic training settings. Low awareness and misinterpretation of SCD may be contributing to the low use of SCD in athletic training research. The key characteristics of SCD make it appropriate for use in clinical and educational settings and may provide clinicians, educators, and researchers an alternative tool for the development of evidence necessary to engage in evidence-based practice.

Assessment of running mechanics has traditionally been conducted in laboratory settings; the advancement of wearable technology permits data collection during outdoor training sessions. Exploring changes in running mechanics across training-session types may assist runners, coaches, and sports medicine clinicians in improving performance and managing the injury risk. To examine changes in running mechanics on the basis of routine training-session types. Descriptive observational study. Field based, university. Running mechanics data (ie, impact g, stride length, braking g, total shock g, cadence, and ground contact time) for National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I distance runners (n = 20 men) were collected using RunScribe sensors mounted to the laces during training sessions (long run [LR], interval run [IR], or recovery run [RR]) during a 1-week period. Repeated-measures analysis of covariance with Greenhouse–Geisser correction and training-session pace as a covariate indicated no statistically significant differences in spatiotemporal or kinetic measures across the 3 training-session types. Cadence and stride length were inversely related in all training sessions (LR: r = −0.673, P =.004; IR: r = −0.893, P <.001; RR: r = −0.549, P =.023). Strong positive correlations were seen between impact g and total shock in all training sessions (LR: r = 0.894, P <.001; IR: r = 0.782, P = <.001; RR: r = 0.922, P <.001). Ground contact time increased with stride length during LR training sessions (r = 0.551, P =.027) and decreased with braking g in IR training sessions (r = −0.574, P =.016) and cadence in RR training sessions (r = −0.487, P =.048). Running mechanics in collegiate distance runners were not statistically different among training-session types when training-session pace was controlled. The use of wearable technology provides a tool for obtaining necessary data during overland training to inform training and program design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]