PERCEIVED GENDER BIAS AMONG HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGIATE
CERTIFIED ATHLETIC TRAINERS

A THESIS
Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies
and Research of
California University of Pennsylvania in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

by
Amber Gach

Research Advisor, Dr. Shelly Fetchen DiCesaro
California, Pennsylvania
2011

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the people without whom this
thesis would never have been completed. First I must thank
my advisor Shelly and my committee members, Dr. Lyles and
Dr. Biddington, for all of their guidance and helpful
suggestions. I would also like to thank Tom West for all of
his proofreading and for helping me out any time I was in a
pinch. I also have to thank my fiancé Ben, the world’s most
patient person, for helping me handle the stress of this
past year. Last, but not least, I owe thanks to all of the
Athletic Trainers who took the time to complete my survey.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SIGNATURE PAGE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
INTRODUCTION
METHODS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Research Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Subjects

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Procedures

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Data Analysis
RESULTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hypotheses Testing .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Additional Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

v
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
APPENDIX A: Review of Literature

. . . . . . . . . 27

Gender Bias in Healthcare Professions . . . . . . . 28
Gender Bias in Sports-Related Professions . . . . . 34
Gender Issues in Athletic Training . . . . . . 38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APPENDIX B: The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Significance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 50
APPENDIX C: Additional Methods . . . . . . . . . . 51
Gender Issues Survey (C1)

. . . . . . . . . . . 52

IRB: California University of Pennsylvania (C2) . . . 60
Cover Letter (C3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
ABSTRACT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Tables

Page

1. Frequency Table for Gender

. . . . . . . . . . .

2. Frequency Table for Job Setting

. . . . . . . . .

3. Frequency Table for NATA Districts

9
10

. . . . . . . .

10

4. Frequency Table for Number of AT Coworkers . . . . .

11

5. Frequency Table for Ethnicity

11

. . . . . . . . . .

6. A MANOVA for the Effect of Gender on Perceived Gender
Bias of Self and Others

. . . . . . . . . . . .

13

7. Pearson Correlation Between Years Experience (YE), Gender
Bias of Self, and Gender Bias of Others. . . . . . .

15

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

1. Perceived Gender Bias of Self Based on Gender . . . .

13

2. Perceived Gender Bias of Others Based on Gender . . .

14

3. Scatterplot Comparing Years Employed with Perceived Gender
Bias of Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

4. Scatterplot Comparing Perceived Gender Bias of Others with
Perceived Gender Bias of Self . . . . . . . . . .

17

INTRODUCTION

There are many factors that contribute to the creation
of a positive work environment. Administrative, social,
economic, time management, and other issues can affect
workplace productivity.1 Employers need to explore a wide
variety of topics to help develop a comfortable and
encouraging atmosphere that allows workers to be productive
and successful.
One matter that may potentially be of concern is the
relationship between colleagues. Personality conflicts and
professional disagreements could create discord in the
working environment. Arguably, among the more serious
issues are relational problems surrounding gender, age, and
ethnicity. Despite efforts on administrators’ parts and
contemporary progressive attitudes, research shows that
there is still gender bias in the workplace in various
professions.2-7
Included among these, are numerous health care
professions. In nursing, research has exposed gender bias
against women in management positions and against male
nursing students during their education.2,4 Inequities have
also been detected in collegiate athletic departments
regarding differences in budgeting of female sports and

2
promotion of female faculty.5,6 Additionally, research has
revealed the presence of gender bias against female
physicians in various stages of training, from patients,
and from colleagues.7
Athletic Training is another vocation that has been
analyzed. Certified Athletic Trainers (ATs) are responsible
for the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of
injuries in the athletic population. The profession of
athletic training started out as predominantly male but
many women have joined over the years. As of March 2011,
51.98% of NATA members are women.8 As this transition has
occurred, it is important to consider how women have been
received and how that reception has changed over time. Are
female ATs treated the same as male ATs?
Of further interest, ATs most commonly work within
sports administrations, which notoriously have gender
discrimination issues.5,6,9 Research has shown that women
attribute the bias they perceive to factors such as an “old
boys’ club” mentality and lack of female mentorship.6
Furthermore, it has been found that organizational members
may deny and even rationalize inequities that they see.5
Does this kind of mentality filter down to the athletic
training departments?

3
While there has been some exploration into gender bias
in athletic training, the researcher has not found any
current survey data on how ATs perceive gender issues
today.10-14 The purpose of this thesis is to examine the
perceived gender bias of high school and collegiate ATs.
The following research questions will be asked: 1) Is there
a difference in the perception of gender bias between male
and female ATs in the following constructs?: (A) gender
bias of self and (B) gender bias of others? 2) Is there a
difference in the perception of gender bias between the
high school and collegiate job settings in the following
constructs?: (A) gender bias of self and (B) gender bias of
others? Gender bias of self refers to the perception of a
biased attitude toward oneself as an individual. Gender
bias of others refers to the perception of a biased
attitude toward a group of people in general.

4
METHODS

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the
perception of gender bias among Certified Athletic Trainers
in the high school and collegiate job settings. This
section will include the following subsections:

Research

Design, Subjects, Instruments, Procedures, Hypotheses, and
Data Analysis.

Research Design

This research will be descriptive in design.

The

dependent variables were perceived gender bias of self and
perceived gender bias of others measured on a five-point
Likert scale.
job setting.

The independent variables were gender and
A strength of this study is the reliability

of the instrument being used. A limitation is selecting
subjects only from the high school and collegiate settings
because ATs working in a variety of other settings.

5
Subjects

As of the end of 2009, the total population of high
school and collegiate ATs who were members of the NATA was
10,782 (4,401 high school; 6,381 college).15 For a
population of this size, a sample size of over 370 was
required.16 The researcher elected to use the largest sample
size permitted by the NATA (1,000) in order to maximize
results. For reference, as of 2009, the NATA had 26,565
total certified members, of which 16.6% worked in the high
school setting and 24.0% worked in the collegiate setting.15
The subjects of this study were 339 Certified Athletic
Trainers who were randomly selected from the National
Athletic Trainers’ Association database. The researcher
utilized the NATA survey listserve for survey distribution.
The NATA District II secretary contacted the subjects by
email, which included the researcher’s cover letter
explaining the study and a link to the survey on the Survey
Monkey website. Informed consent of the subjects was
implied by voluntarily completing the survey.

6
Instruments

The Gender Issues Survey (Appendix C1) by Sipe et al,17
which was based on a survey by Carr et al,18 was used to
examine perceived gender bias of each subject. The section
regarding gender bias of self has a Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha of .72. The section dealing with gender bias of
others has a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of .87. A section
on sexual harassment was not used in this study; this
section had no bearing in the reported Cronbach’s
coefficient alpha scores. It contained a total of 24 items
pertaining to gender bias, eight pertaining to gender bias
of self and 16 referring to gender bias of others. These
items are based on a five-point Likert scale and,
therefore, can result in a score of 8 to 40 for bias of
self and 16 to 80 for bias of others. There are also eight
items pertaining to demographic information. Two of the
demographic items included were from the original survey,
while the other six items were added to address ATs
specifically.

7
Procedures

The researcher obtained Institutional Review Board
approval (Appendix C2) at California University of
Pennsylvania before beginning any data collection. Approval
to have the survey sent to a random group of certified NATA
members was sought from the NATA by filling out a Contact
List Request Form and submitting it to the District II
secretary.

Once approved, the NATA District II secretary

emailed each AT a cover letter (Appendix C3) with a survey
link explaining the purpose of the study. Follow-up emails
were sent three days and ten days later. The link was left
open for a total of two weeks before it was closed.

This

timeframe was selected because research has shown that a
majority of responses occur within the first three days
after initial contact.19 A final reminder was sent one week
later, which coincides with the timeline in other
studies.20,21 The total duration of the survey was selected
due to time restrictions. The data was anonymous and, once
the information was collected, it was downloaded from
Survey Monkey to the Predictive Analysis SoftWare
Statistics (PASW) program for data analysis.

8
Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were based on a review of the
literature and the researcher’s intuition:
1. Female ATs will perceive more gender bias than male
ATs in the following constructs:(A) gender bias of
self and (B) gender bias of others.
2. There will be no difference in perception of gender
bias between the high school and collegiate job
settings for (A) gender bias of self and (B) gender
bias of others.

Data Analysis

All data was analyzed by PASW version 17.0 for Windows
at an alpha level of 0.05. The research hypotheses were
analyzed using a MANOVA.

9
RESULTS

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the
perception of gender bias among certified athletic trainers
in the high school and collegiate job settings. The
following section contains the data collected through the
study and is divided into three subsections: Demographic
Information, Hypotheses Testing, and Additional Findings.

Demographic Data

The sample consisted of Certified Athletic Trainers
who are in good standing with the National Athletic
Trainers’ Association and indicated that they are employed
in either the high school or collegiate settings. The
sample consisted of 1,000 members. Responses totaled 353,
14 of which were not completed and therefore omitted from
the data analysis. This produced a total of 339 subjects
and a response rate of 33.9%. Research has shown that email
surveys receive a 25-30% response rate on average.22 The
sample included 169 females and 170 males (Table 1).
Table 1. Frequency Table for Gender
Gender
Female
Male

Frequency
169
170

Percent
49.9
50.1

10
Employment as an AT ranged from 1 to 44 years (12.83 ±
9.109). The population consisted of 148 ATs in the high
school setting and 191 ATs in the collegiate setting (Table
2).
Table 2. Frequency Table for Job Setting
Job Setting
Frequency
Percent
High School
148
43.7
College
191
56.3

The range of years working as an AT in the high school
setting was 1 to 36 years (12.66 ± 8.830). The range of
years working as an AT in the collegiate setting was 1 to
44 years (12.97 ± 9.940).
The distribution of survey respondents’ home district
varied as evidenced in Table 3. Responses were highest from
Districts Two, Three, Four, and Eight, which coincides with
NATA membership statistics; these four districts contain
the most members.24
Table 3. Frequency Table for NATA Districts
NATA District
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

Frequency
28
56
43
51
26
30
20
39
33

13

Percent
8.3
16.5
12.7
15.0
7.7
8.8
5.9
11.5
9.7

3.8

11
Table 4 reports the frequency of ATs who work alone
and those who work with one or more other ATs.
Table 4. Frequency Table for Number of AT Coworkers
Number of AT Coworkers
Works alone
One or more other ATs

Frequency
103
236

Percent
30.4
69.6

Table 5 reports the frequency of the subjects’
ethnicities. One subject chose to identify his or herself
as “Other,” indicating that he or she is “Asian American.”
Table 5. Frequency Table for Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Frequency
White, not Hispanic
319
Black, not Hispanic
8
Asian or Pacific Islander
6
Native American or Alaskan Native
1
Hispanic/ Latino/ Latina
4
Other
1

Percent
94.1
2.4
1.8
0.3
1.2
0.3

Hypotheses Testing

All hypotheses were tested with a level of
significance set at α ≤ 0.05.
Hypothesis 1:

Female ATCs will perceive more gender

bias than male ATCs in the following constructs:(A) gender
bias of self and (B) gender bias of others.
Null Hypothesis: Gender will not have an effect on
perception of gender bias of self or others.

12
A one-way MANOVA was calculated examining the effect
of gender on perception of gender bias of self and others.
Conclusion: A significant effect was found
(Lambda(2,336)= .620, p < .001). Follow-up univariate
ANOVAs indicated that gender affected perceived gender bias
of self (F(1,337) = 168.470, p < .001). Gender also
affected perceived gender bias of others (F(1,337) =
16.860, p < .001). Analysis revealed that female ATs
perceived more gender bias of self (20.82 ± 5.652) than
male ATs (13.71 ± 4.365). Female ATs also perceived more
gender bias of others (35.44 ± 7.013) than male ATs (32.08
± 8.047). See Table 6 and Figures 1 and 2.
Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in
perception of gender bias between the high school and
collegiate job settings for (A) gender bias of self and (B)
gender bias of others.
A one-way MANOVA was calculated examining the effect
of job setting (high school or collegiate) on perception of
gender bias.
Conclusion: No significant effect was found (Lambda(3,
335)= .996, p > .05). The Athletic Trainers’ perceptions of
gender bias of self, women, or men were not significantly
influenced by job setting.

13
Table 6. A MANOVA for the Effect of Gender on Perceived
Gender Bias of Self and Others
Source
Dependent Type III
df
MS
F
P
Variable
Sum of
Squares
Gender ST
4292.21
1 4292.214
168.47 0.000
OT
960.957
1 960.957
16.86 0.000
Setting ST
33.112
1
33.112
0.869 0.352
OT
30.904
1
30.904
0.517 0.473

Figure 1. Perceived Gender Bias of Self Based on Gender

14

Figure 2. Perceived Gender Bias of Others Based on Gender

Additional Findings

A Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for
the relationship between years employed as a Certified
Athletic Trainer, perceived gender bias of self, and
perceived gender bias of others. A strong negative
correlation was found (r(337)= -.268, p < .001) between
years employed and perceived gender bias of self,
indicating a significant linear relationship between the

15
two variables. This indicates that ATs with more years of
experience tend to experience less gender bias. A strong
positive correlation was found (r(337)= .659, p < .001)
between perceived gender bias of self and perceived gender
bias of others, indicating a significant linear
relationship between the two variables. This indicates that
ATs who perceive more gender bias of self also perceive
more gender bias of others. See Table 7 and Figures 3 and
4.

Table 7. Pearson Correlation Between Years Experience
(YE), Gender Bias of Self, and Gender Bias of Others
YE
Self
Others
YE
Pearson
Sig(2tail)
N
Self
Pearson
-.268
Sig(2tail)
.000
N
339
Others
Pearson
.659
Sig(2tail)
.000
N
339

16

Figure 3. Scatterplot Comparing Years Employed with
Perceived Gender Bias of Self

17

Figure 4. Scatterplot Comparing Perceived Gender Bias of
Others with Perceived Gender Bias of Self

18
DISCUSSION

The following section will include: 1) Discussion
of Results, 2) Conclusions, and 3) Recommendations.

Discussion of Results

This study focused on high school and collegiate
Certified Athletic Trainers’ perceptions of gender bias.
Research has been done to examine others’ perceptions of
ATs,13,14 but there is no current research on the perceptions
of the ATs themselves. It is important to investigate this
issue because researchers have identified athletic training
as a profession with “male-dominated attitudes,”11 even
though more than half of NATA members are women.15 Where
exactly do women fit into the athletic training profession?
It is important to note that the results of the Gender
Issues Survey (Appendix C1) are subjective; two ATs in the
same situation may interpret circumstances differently.
Gender bias may be more or less prevalent than subjects
report. However, due to the strong reliability of the
instrument, it can be assumed that accurate representations
of each individual’s perceptions were obtained.

19
This study found that female ATs perceive more gender
bias of both self and others than male ATs. The researcher
hypothesized this relationship based on the previous
research. These results coincide with research by O’Connor
et al14 that showed that athletes perceive female ATs
differently than male ATs and that they demonstrate gender
biased opinions. While these results cannot be generalized
to the entire population of ATs, they may indicate that
gender bias does exist specifically in the high school and
collegiate settings. Additionally, there was no significant
difference in the amount of perceived gender bias between
the high school and collegiate settings. This was not a
surprising finding as there is nothing in the current
research to indicate that such a difference would be found.
There is no current research comparing gender bias between
job settings in athletic training.
Beyond the research hypotheses, additional
correlations were identified. According to the data, as
years of experience increase, perception of gender bias
decreases. This may indicate that more experienced ATs are
subjected to less gender bias than less experienced ATs.
There is no current research on this topic in athletic
training; however, Fischer24 has found that egalitarian
organizations and recently prosperous organizations are

20
more likely to reward seniority. Further research is needed
to determine if this applies to athletic training
workplaces. This data could also indicate that what ATs
perceive as gender bias is in fact age discrimination
toward the young. There is no current research exploring
this issue in athletic training. In addition, as perceived
gender bias of self increased, so did perceived gender bias
of others. This may indicate that certain individuals are
more perceptive or sensitive to gender bias.
The results of this study have some implications for
the athletic training profession. Results justify the
assertion that administrators should address gender bias
through increased communication and social support,
mentorship opportunities, and compliance with all
discrimination laws. These recommendations are supported by
Perez et al11 and Goodman et al.25 Employers should create an
open atmosphere that allows individuals to report
violations and discuss any difficulties they encounter. In
addition, gender bias from athletes must be addressed.
Coaches should work together with ATs of the opposite sex
to provide positive examples of gender equity.
Administrators should consider promoting gender equity
through meetings with athletes and implementing rules
against discrimination into policies.

21
The results of this study also warrant further
research into gender bias in athletic training. This study
was limited to only two of the 16 settings recognized by
the NATA.

In addition, the sample was biased in ethnicity;

A large majority of respondents (94.1%) selected “White,
not Hispanic” as their ethnicity. Reviewing NATA statistics
may give some insight into the degree this bias. It is
important to note that the NATA does not differentiate
certified and non-certified members in its ethnicity
statistics; however, the NATA reports that as of March 2011
79.2% of all members select “White Not of Hispanic Origin”
as their ethnicity.8 Therefore, while ethnicity bias was
present in this research, it may not be as significant as
it appears. Subsequent research should attempt to remedy
these limitations.

Conclusions

The results of the study revealed the following major
conclusions:
1) Female certified Athletic Trainers perceive more gender
bias than male certified Athletic Trainers in both of the
following constructs: (A) gender bias of self and (B)
gender bias of others.

22
2) There is no difference in certified Athletic Trainers’
perception of gender bias between the high school and
collegiate job settings for (A) gender bias of self and (B)
gender bias of others.
3) Certified Athletic Trainers with more years of work
experience had a lower perception of gender bias.
4) Certified Athletic Trainers who perceived more gender bias
of self also perceived more gender bias of others.

Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following
research recommendations were made:
1) Future studies should develop a new reliable survey that is
more specific to Athletic Trainers.
2) Future studies should include all possible job settings of
Athletic Trainers, as listed on the NATA website.
3) Future studies should utilize a larger sample size to
maximize results.
4) Future studies should obtain more subjects from minority
ethnicities.

23
REFERENCES

1. Stichler JL. Creating a healthy, positive work
environment: a leadership imperative. Nurs Wom Heal.
2009;13(4):341-346.
2. Pannowitz HK, Glass N, Davis K. Resisting gender bias:
insights from Western Australian middle-level women
nurses. Contemp Nurse. 2009;33(2):103-119.
3. Bergman B. Polarized gender thinking – visions or
norms in male-dominated workplaces?. Int J Qual Stud
Health Well-Being. 2008;3(3):165-175.
4. Anthony AS. Gender bias and discrimination in nursing
education: can we change it?. Nurse Educ.
2004;29(3):121-125.
5. Hoeber L. Exploring the gaps between meanings and
practices of gender equity in a sport organization.
Gend Work Organ. 2007;14(3):259-280.
6. Schneider RC, Steir WF, Henry TJ, Wilding GE. Senior
women administrators’ perceptions of factors leading
to discrimination of women in intercollegiate athletic
departments. J Issues Intercoll Athl. 2010;3:16-34.
7. Shrier DK, Zucker AN, Mercurio AE, Landry LJ, Rich M,
Shrier LA. Generation to generation: discrimination
and harassment experiences of physician mothers and
their physician daughters. J Womens Health.
2007;16(6):883-894.
8. National Athletic Trainers’ Association. Membership
statistics: ethnicity demographics. Available at
http://cf.nata.org/members1/documents/membstats/201103.htm. Accessed April 17,2011.
9. Masteralexis LP. Sexual harassment and athletics:
legal and policy implications for athletic
departments. J Sport Soc Issues. 1995;19(2):141-156.
10. Velasquez BJ. Drummond J. Sexual harassment in the
athletic training room: implications for athletic
trainers. Athl Ther Today. 2003;8(2):20-23.

24

11. Perez PS, Hibbler DK, Cleary MA, Eberman LE. Gender
equity in athletic training. Athl Ther Today. 2006;11
(2):66-69.
12. Wiese-Bjornstal D. Gender in the athletic training
room. Athl Ther Today. 2000;5(5):26-27.
13. Drummond JL, Hostetter K, Laguna PL, Gillentine A, Del
Rossi G. Self-reported comfort of collegiate athletes
with injury and condition care by same-sex and
opposite-sex athletic trainers. J Athl Train.
2007;42(1):106-112.
14. O’Connor C, Grappendorf H, Burton L, Harmon SM,
Henderson AC, Peel J. National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division I football players’ perceptions
of women in the athletic training room using a role
congruity framework. J Athl Train. 2010;45(4):386-391.
15. National Athletic Trainers’ Association. NATA 2009 end
of year membership statistics. Available at
http://cf.nata.org/members1/documents/membstats/2009EO
Y-stats.htm. Accessed April 14, 2011.
16. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for
research activities. Educ Psychol Meas. 1970;30:607610.
17. Sipe S, Johnson CD, Fisher DK. University students'
perceptions of gender discrimination in the workplace:
reality versus fiction. J Educ Bus. 2009;84(6):339349.
18. Carr PL, Ash AS, Friedman RH, Szalacha L, Barnett RC,
Palepu A, et al. Faculty perceptions of gender
discrimination and sexual harassment in academic
medicine. Annals Intern Med. 2000;132:889-896.
19. Yun GW, Trumbo CW. Comparative response to a survey
executed by post, email, and web form. J Comp Med
Comm[serial online]. 2000;6(1). Available at:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/yun.html. Accessed
May 3, 2011.

25
20. Fraze S, Hardin K, Brashears T, Haygood J, Smith JH.
The effects of delivery mode upon survey response rate
and perceived attitudes of Texas agri-science
teachers. J Agr Educ. 2003;44(2):27-37.
21. Lough BJ, Moore A, Sherraden MS. Perceived effects of
international volunteering: reports from alumni.
Available at
http://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/RP0910.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2011.
22. Kittleson MJ. An assessment of the response rate via
the postal service and e-mail. J Hlth Behav Educ
Promot. 1995;19(2):27-29.
23. National Athletic Trainers’ Association. Membership
statistics: April 2011 NATA membership by class and
district. Available at
http://cf.nata.org/members1/documents/membstats/201104.htm. Accessed May 1, 2011.
24. Fischer R. Rewarding seniority: exploring cultural and
organizational predictors of seniority allocations. J
Soc Psychol. 2008;148(2):167-186.
25. Goodman A, Mensch JM, Jay M, French KE, Mitchell MF,
Fritz SL. Retention and attrition factors for female
certified athletic trainers in the National Collegiate
Athletic Division I Football Bowl Subdivision setting.
J Athl Train. 2010;45(3):287-298.

26

APPENDICES

27

APPENDIX A
Review of Literature

28

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Certified Athletic Trainers (ATs) are allied
healthcare professionals that prevent, evaluate, treat, and
rehabilitate both acute and chronic injuries in the
athletic population.1 At its inception, athletic training
was a male-dominated field, but the representation of women
has increased as the profession has developed. In fact, as
of March 2011, 51.98% of NATA members are women.2 While the
face of athletic training may be changing, it is important
to explore the effects of this change. This literature
review will examine previous research on gender bias in
healthcare and sport-related professions. This will be done
in the following sections: Gender Bias in Healthcare
Professions, Gender Bias in Sport-Related Professions,
Gender Issues in Athletic Training, and Sexual Harassment.
The review will conclude with a summary of the information.

Gender Bias in Healthcare Professions

Gender bias is an issue that has been explored in a
variety of healthcare professions. Researchers have long
been interested in whether equal treatment exists in the
workforce. Some professions have earned a reputation as

29
masculine or feminine, which leaves one to wonder where the
opposite gender fits in. Has equality been established or
has gender bias been perpetuated?
Gender bias is dynamic; it can be affected by many
things, including time. Shrier et al3 explored this idea by
comparing the experiences of two generations of female
physicians with regards to gender discrimination and
harassment. The authors compared 136 dyads of mother and
daughter pairs, who were surveyed regarding matters of
gender bias and discrimination. It was shown that the
second generation experienced higher rates of
discrimination during medical school and dealt with more
discrimination from patients than their mothers did.
However, the first generation experienced higher rates of
discrimination from their colleagues. Both mothers and
daughters experienced similar rates of discrimination
before medical school, in residency or fellowship, and in
the work setting. Both generations also experienced similar
levels of discrimination from teachers and supervisors.
These results show that gender bias may be changing over
time but it still endures in the workplace.
More gender bias research has been done in the medical
field. Bucknall and Pynsent4 examined attitudes toward
female orthopedic surgeons. The authors surveyed three

30
separate groups of subjects, including medical students,
patients, and orthopedic surgeons respectively. Regarding
students, results showed that significantly fewer female
students would consider a career in orthopedic surgery.
Only 24% showed interest in pursuing this career. The
female students who rejected this specialty listed either
lack of interest or male domination as their reasoning.
Significantly more female students than male students
encountered negative attitudes towards female surgeons.
Fifteen percent of the subjects reported hearing senior
professionals say that women should not be surgeons because
they lacked the necessary skills and strength.
Additionally, Bucknall and Pynsent4 found that 89% of
patients indicated that they had no gender preference for
their orthopedic surgeon. Approximately 75% of patients did
not believe that male orthopedic surgeons are more skilled
than females, and 81% did not believe that females lacked
the necessary strength to perform orthopedic surgeries.
Ninety-four percent of the participating orthopedic
surgeons indicated that they did not prefer male only
surgical teams, and 75% believed that women have the
necessary strength to operate. However, there were some
subjects that revealed very biased opinions. Seven surgeons
believed that women were incapable of operating, and three

31
believed that women should be pressured to leave the
profession. While this represents a minority among
subjects, these beliefs are very troubling. Also, while it
is clear that many of the subjects hold positive opinions
of female orthopedic surgeons, there are still many
negative opinions out there. The authors hypothesize that,
once lack of interest is accounted for, the negative
opinions students do encounter affect the recruitment of
women into the profession.
Blakemore et al5 have explored this recruiting issue
within orthopedic surgery and have calculated some alarming
statistics. The authors found that while the percentage of
women in orthopedic surgery has increased, it has increased
at a much slower rate than any other primary surgical
specialty. Orthopedic residencies have the lowest
percentage of females of any surgical specialty. The
authors hypothesize that the failure to recruit more
females is due to recruiter discrimination, perceived
physical requirements, and perceived work-life balance
issues. They go on to suggest that an active effort to
recruit females should be made and that motherhood-friendly
policies should be adopted.
As this phenomenon persists, it pervades multiple
levels of authority. Pannowitz et al6 examined the

32
experiences of eight female nurses working in corporate or
management positions in Western Australian public
hospitals. The authors hoped to identify “experiences that
empowered, disempowered, and/or oppressed” the nurses
through interviews and observations. The authors detected
three roles that the nurses fulfilled: values attributed to
nursing, bureaucratic managerialism, and medical science.
They found that the nurses’ experiences under bureaucratic
managerialism and medical science were generally biased.
The research showed that the nurses weren’t always aware of
bias and that they used non-confrontational approaches to
address conflict.
Gender bias is by no means exclusive to women, and we
can see this by examining the male viewpoint in nursing.
Anthony7 studied the impact gender bias has on the
recruitment of males into nursing education. The author
discussed the history of men in nursing and how their
achievements have been overshadowed by the emerging
stereotype of nursing as a woman’s job. She asserts that
nursing is rooted in the work of Florence Nightingale,
which perpetuated a feminine bias; a stereotype began to
emerge around nursing, making it appear as if the role of
the nurse was to be caring, nurturing, and maternal in
nature. This excluded males from the profession because

33
they were not seen as possessing these feminine virtues.
However, Anthony asserts that in ancient civilizations men
were the ones who assumed care giving roles, and male
military nursing was common in the Middle Ages and American
Civil War era. The author attributes today’s gender bias
against males to ignorance of males’ historical
contributions to the nursing profession. One can speculate
that this feminine bias may discourage men from pursuing an
education in the nursing field.
This research is backed-up by another study in a
different region. Tzeng et al8 compared role strain between
male and female obstetrics nursing students in Taiwan. A
cross-sectional survey was administered to 95 female and 55
male students from two central Taiwan universities. The
survey contained sections regarding demographics, personal
attitudes, and role strain. Analysis showed that males
experienced significantly higher role strain due to
attitudes of clinical instructors, healthcare providers,
and clients, as well as a lack of interest in nursing. The
authors suggest that clinical instructors use should
examine their own practice for gender bias and try to
bridge the gap between male nursing students and other
healthcare providers. This research further demonstrates
gender stereotyping can affect the workplace negatively.

34
Gender Bias in Sport-Related Professions

Even since the inception of Title IX, athletics are
typically thought of as masculine.9 Aggressive images often
come to mind, such as two linemen clashing at the line of
scrimmage or hockey players crashing into the Plexiglas. It
is no surprise that gender bias has been studied in various
careers in sports organizations to see how far this maleoriented attitude reaches.
Hoeber10 conducted research to analyze the explanations
of sports organization members of the meaning and practice
of gender equity. Data was collected from a Canadian
university athletic department that claimed gender equity
as an organizational value. Hoeber focused on the
basketball, hockey, rugby, and swimming programs; these
were selected because they met criteria regarding the
following: availability to men and women, operational
structure, history of coexistence, and institutional
design. Analysis showed that the subjects had a thorough
understanding of gender equity, yet it was revealed that
subjects justified gender inequities. Justifications
centered around two themes: denial and rationalization.
This information suggests that there is a difference in the
way we think about gender and the way we act. Even though

35
colleagues may be well-versed in the concepts of equality,
their actions may not reflect this.
Failing to resolve the gender issues we see can have
an effect on women in the workplace. Schneider et al11
examined which factors of discrimination inhibit the
advancement of women in National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) athletic departments. Senior women
administrators (n=406) were surveyed. Results showed that
the major discrimination factors were the “old boys’ club,”
wage discrimination, lack of female mentors, family
commitments, and burnout. The authors propose that these
are issues that can be remedied by administration.
Instituting mentoring programs and support systems can help
create equality. Refusing to address these issues will only
perpetuate the stagnation of women’s careers in NCAA
athletic departments.
The issue of gender bias was further researched by
Burton et al.12 These researchers surveyed 158 female and
118 male administrators in NCAA Division I athletic
departments. Each participant was provided with one of six
scenarios in which a male or female candidate was
recommended for a position with a large university. They
were asked to evaluate the candidate’s potential success
and the likelihood that a male or female would be selected

36
to fill the role. They were also asked to rate the
candidate based on stereotypical male and stereotypical
female characteristics. A five-point Likert scale was used
for each section. No significant difference was found in
the ratings for success of male versus female candidates.
However, female candidates were evaluated as significantly
less likely to be considered for an athletic director
position. These results may reveal something problematic;
they may indicate that even though males and females are
perceived to be equal in skill, females may still be less
likely to be chosen for a typically masculine role.
This phenomenon does not appear to be localized, as
evidenced by other research. Pfister13 conducted a gender
bias study on Danish sports organizations. The population
included current sports administrators. The current
administrators were asked to complete a survey. It revealed
that approximately 50% of subjects felt that men had more
power in athletics; also, 41% felt that men and women had
equal opportunities for employment, while 34% did not, and
24% were undecided on the issue. These opinions show that
inequality still persists in administrative positions in
various locations of the world.
Another region where gender issues in sports-related
professions have been studied is Germany. Pfister and

37
Radtke14 surveyed both male and female administrators in
German sports federations. The survey contained 103 items
in the following categories: demographics, everyday life,
profession, sports biography, and career as a leader in
sports organizations. Of particular interest, both genders
reported similar frequency of career barriers; however,
women reported more gender-specific barriers. Approximately
one-third of female respondents reported such obstacles.
While perception is subjective, it is troublesome that
women administrators detect gender bias even at the top
ranks.
Leberman and Palmer15 studied women administrators in
New Zealand, focusing specifically on motherhood. The
subjects included nine women in leadership positions in
national sports organizations. This included
administrators, managers, and coaches. All of the subjects
had children, ranging in ages from six weeks to 15 years.
The researchers conducted interviews with each subject. The
authors found that the women felt that motherhood had a
positive impact on their work performance by helping them
to become more tolerant and focused on the personal
development of their athletes. However, they often felt
guilt at the impact their work lives had on their ability
to fulfill motherhood roles. The subjects also reported

38
experiencing social disapproval for taking on multiple
roles in their lives, but they found support from their
families. Even though the sample was quite small in this
study, the findings provide an interesting insight on the
issues women face when juggling personal and professional
responsibilities.

Gender Issues in Athletic Training

Just as gender has been studied in a wide variety of
occupations, researchers have investigated the role of
gender in the athletic training profession. They have
studied if and how gender affects the interactions between
ATs and administrators, coaches, athletes, and colleagues.
It is important to consider both daily exchanges and
widespread policy issues. The advancement, perception, and
equal treatment of women in the workplace are a few of the
issues of concern for researchers.
Perez et al16 explored gender bias issues in athletic
training using the muted group theory and attempted to
offer strategies for dealing with these issues. Muted group
theory focuses on the phenomenon of a dominant group
silencing a minority group. The authors identify athletic
training as a profession with “male-dominated attitudes”

39
that may cause women to be viewed as inferior. They propose
that women are often forced to ignore demeaning remarks
because these comments are accepted into the culture of
athletics. The authors go on to suggest that networking,
mentorship, and communication are the keys to overcoming
gender bias. Employers should take responsibility by
establishing programs such as childcare, parental leave,
flexible scheduling, and workshops that address gender bias
issues in the workplace. These types of programs may help
female ATs feel more comfortable in their jobs and more
resistant to gender bias.
This leads us to wonder why some female ATs remain in
their jobs while others leave. Goodman et al17 examined the
reasons that female ATs leave their jobs in the NCAA
Division I Football Subdivision. This venue is often viewed
as very desirable by Athletic Trainers, so it is important
to consider what may be causing women to give up their
jobs. The subjects included women currently employed at
this setting (n=12) and women who had left their jobs
(n=11). They were interviewed and the results were analyzed
via the grounded theory method. Results showed that the
following factors influenced decisions to stay: increased
autonomy, increased social support, job enjoyment, and
kinship responsibility. The following factors influenced

40
decisions to leave: life balance issues, role conflict and
overload, and kinship responsibility. The authors assert
that a social support system that includes coaches,
colleagues, and administrators should be put in place to
help with retention.
A large amount of research has focused on the life
balance issue. Kahanov et al18 examined female ATs’
perspectives on parenting. The researchers surveyed female
ATs in the secondary school (n=167) and collegiate (n=106)
settings. The subjects were asked to complete a survey that
contained questions in the following categories:
demographics, parents, nonparents who want no children,
nonparents who want to have children, and general opinions
on working mothers in the collegiate setting. Results
showed that both parents and nonparents thought that the
combination of working and parenting is challenging. Many
of the subjects (45%) thought that this task was possible
but that energy levels would probably be low if undertaken.
Approximately 25% of subjects thought that family life may
suffer due to professional obligations or that fulfilling
professional responsibilities would be difficult due to
family commitments. This information is important to
consider because it may give a clue as to why females may
suffer burnout in this profession.

41
As research by Giacobbi19 shows, women are suffering
higher levels of burnout. The purpose of this study was to
assess burnout and wellness of ATs and to compare results
between the following groups: men and women, more postcertification experience versus less experience, and
different occupational settings. Surveys were completed by
randomly selected ATs who were employed full time in
university, secondary school, youth, industrial, or
clinical settings. Results showed that while 17.2% of
subjects were in advanced stages of burnout, most subjects
demonstrated low levels of burnout. It was also shown that
women and ATs working in the university setting experienced
more burnout. Particularly, women score significantly
higher than men for emotional exhaustion, which the authors
identify as the most powerful element of exhaustion. The
authors recommend that more studies be done to examine why
these differences in burnout levels are occurring.
Beyond retention and attrition issues, it is important
to also consider daily occupational concerns. WieseBjornstal20 studied the differences between the genders and
the effect of these differences on interactions in the
athletic training room. The author notes that studies have
shown that women’s brains are neurologically wired to talk,
while men’s brains are wired to act. A stronger connection

42
between left and right hemispheres in females creates a
better ability to articulate feelings. Wiese-Bjornstal
suggests that ATs should attempt to employ listening and
talking strategies that cater to the gender of the athlete
they are interacting with. For example, the author notes
that males are less likely to seek medical care than
females. Therefore, the author suggests that ATs may need
to coax males more to get them to seek medical care. The
research implies that whether interacting with athletes,
coaches, or colleagues, communication issues may exist
between the genders. Being aware of differences in the
genders does not need to lead to different treatment; in
fact, being aware of these differences can lead to better
communication and equality in care.
While ATs strive to deliver equal care, athletes’
perceptions may play a large role in the overall quality of
care received. Drummond et al21 examined athletes’ comfort
with care by same-sex and opposite-sex Athletic Trainers
through cross-sectional survey design. Athletes (n=685)
were asked to rate their comfort with scenarios that
included sex-specific issues. The authors found that in
general medical conditions, mid-body injuries, and genderspecific conditions, both male and female athletes felt
more comfortable dealing with same-sex ATs. In

43
psychological conditions, upper body injuries, and lower
body injuries, female athletes preferred same-sex ATs and
male athletes showed no preference either way. The authors
concluded that ATs of both sexes should be accessible
whenever possible in order to create the most comfortable
setting for athletes. This research shows that even if
employers and coworkers make efforts to create gender
equity in the workplace, gender bias may exist in other
ways.
Furthering this research, O’Connor et al22 examined how
athletes perceive female ATs in the athletic training
room.11 The researchers surveyed NCAA Division I football
players (n=97) from two universities. Subjects were
administered the male-oriented portion of the Gender
Comfort With Athletic Trainer Questionnaire, originally
authored by Drummond et al21 This questionnaire revealed
statistically significant data that football players prefer
male ATs for the care of general medical conditions and
that they prefer male ATs for sex-specific conditions.
There was no statistically significant evidence that
football players were more comfortable with female ATs for
the care of psychological conditions.
O’Connor et al22 also added an open-ended question
asking the subject to describe the characteristics and

44
attributes of female ATs. Of the 97 subjects, 69 responses
(71.1%) to the open-ended question were received. Content
analysis was performed on the responses, coding them as
evidence of gender-role stereotyping, the same or equal to
male ATs, or other. Analysis showed that 58% (n=40) of the
answers showed gender bias, 33.3% (n=23) found male and
female ATs to be equal, and 8.7% (n=6) were classified as
other. O’Connor et al. concluded that these results showed
that the roles of woman and football Athletic Trainer were
incongruent in the subjects’ minds. They speculate that
this is associated with the belief that women do not
possess appropriate leadership qualities and that this is
what leads to underrepresentation of women ATs in male
sports.
This belief is unfounded, as evidenced in research by
Laurent and Bradney.23 They attempted to identify leadership
behaviors of head Athletic Trainers and program directors
in Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education
Programs (CAAHEP) accredited institutions and to compare
these behaviors to those of leaders in other fields. The
subjects were 238 ATs in leadership positions, who
completed the Leadership Practices Inventory. This
instrument identifies five leadership practices: Model,
Inspire, Challenge, Enable, and Encourage. Results showed

45
that female ATs reported using the Inspire, Challenge,
Enable, and Encourage strategies more often than men. While
it cannot be concluded that one style of leading is better
than another, this data demonstrates that women AT leaders
are diverse. The belief that female ATs lack leadership
skills is unsubstantiated.

Summary

Gender bias is a phenomenon that has been studied in a
wide range of professions. When present, this type of bias
can affect the retention and advancement of professionals,
typically women, which warrants the significant amount of
research that has been done in this area. Gender bias has
been detected against both genders, across generations, and
at varying levels of authority. Researchers have examined
which factors influence bias, who is perpetuating it, and
how levels of gender bias have changed over time.
Researchers must continue to examine gender issues in
athletic training. It is essential that women are able to
achieve the same level of professional advancement as men,
for example, by attaining employment in professional
sports. Athletic training can no longer be the “old boys’
club” it once was. Women have shown themselves to be a

46
valuable asset to the profession and should be able to reap
the rewards of their hard work.

47

APPENDIX B
The Problem

48
THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem
The profession of athletic training has shifted from a
male-dominated field to one that has nearly equal gender
representation. Although athletic training has undergone a
seemingly constant flow of changes since its inception, it
is important to examine how professionals and their
colleagues are adapting to these changes. While there are
many female ATs in the field today, are attitudes toward
women changing in the workplace accordingly? Are the
experiences of female ATs comparable to those of male ATs?
What does it mean to be a woman in athletic training?
These questions inspired the development of this
research. The purpose of this study was to examine the
perception of gender bias among collegiate and high school
Certified Athletic Trainers. This study examined the
perceptions of both male and female ATS in order to obtain
an accurate comparison.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms will be defined for
this study:

49
1)

Gender Bias – preferential treatment of one gender
over another, either intentional or unintentional.24

2)

Gender Bias of Others – gender bias toward a group of
people in general

3)

Gender Bias of Self – gender bias toward oneself as an
individual.

4)

National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) –
national professional organization for Certified
Athletic Trainers and athletic training students.25

5)

Perception of Gender Bias – the degree to which gender
bias is detected by an individual.26

Basic Assumptions
The following are basic assumptions of this study:
1)

All respondents are currently working as Certified
Athletic Trainers at the collegiate or high school
settings.

2)

All respondents will answer the questionnaire honestly
and to the best of their knowledge.

3)

All respondents will be given adequate time to fill
out the questionnaire.

Limitations of the Study
The following are possible limitations of the study:

50
1)

The questionnaire was distributed only to high school
and collegiate ATs.

2)

A large enough sample for data analysis may not be
collected due to low response rate.

Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the
perception of gender bias among high school and collegiate
ATs. It is important to investigate this information
because it will help gauge the current status of gender
equality in the profession of athletic training. The
results of this study should prompt the consideration of
the role each person plays in the promotion of gender
equality.
By considering the opinions of professionals in the
workplace, administrators can address what must be done to
either create equality or sustain it. They should consider
the larger picture, including the roles of administration,
coaches, athletes, and other ATs. Athletic Trainers should
consider their interactions with colleagues of the opposite
gender. They should also contemplate how their own actions
affect the treatment they receive from others. Through this
type of thinking and open communication about these issues,
improvements in gender equality may be made.

51

APPENDIX C
Additional Methods

52

APPENDIX C1
Gender Issues Survey

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

APPENDIX C2
Institutional Review Board –
California University of Pennsylvania

61
Proposal Number
Date Received

PROTOCOL for Research
Involving Human Subjects

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is required before beginning
any research and/or data collection involving human subjects

(Reference IRB Policies and Procedures for clarification)

Project Title Perceived Gender Bias Among High School and Collegiate Certified Athletic Trainers
Researcher/Project Director

Amber Gach, ATC

Phone # (570 )956-9529

E-mail Address gac0926@calu.edu

Faculty Sponsor (if required) Shelly DiCesaro, PhD, ATC, CSCS
Department Health Science
Project Dates 1/15/11 to 1/15/12
Sponsoring Agent (if applicable)
Project to be Conducted at California University of Pennsylvania
Project Purpose:

Thesis

Research

Class Project

Keep a copy of this form for your records.

Other

62
Please attach a typed, detailed summary of your project AND complete items 2 through 6.
1. Provide an overview of your project-proposal describing what you plan to do and how you will go about
doing it. Include any hypothesis(ses)or research questions that might be involved and explain how the
information you gather will be analyzed. For a complete list of what should be included in your summary,
please refer to Appendix B of the IRB Policies and Procedures Manual.
The primary purpose of this study is to examine the perception of gender bias among Certified Athletic
Trainers in the high school and collegiate job settings. This research will be descriptive in design. The
dependent variables will be perceived gender bias of self and perceived gender bias of others measured on a
five-point Likert scale. The independent variables will be gender and job setting. The subjects of this study
will be 1000 male and 1000 female randomly selected Certified Athletic Trainers who will be randomly
selected from the National Athletic Trainers’ Association database. The researcher will utilize the NATA
survey instrument to distribute the survey to participants. The subjects will be contacted by email via Survey
Monkey and provided with a link the survey that will be administered to the subjects online. Informed consent
of the subjects will be implied by voluntarily completing the survey. Results will be kept in electronic format
only in a password protected file until entered into SPSS for analysis. The following hypotheses were based
on a review of the literature and the researcher’s intuition.
1. Female ATs will perceive more gender bias than male ATs in the following constructs:(A) gender bias of
self and (B) gender bias of others.
2. There will be no difference in perception of gender bias between the high school and collegiate job
settings for (A) gender bias of self and (B) gender bias of others.
2. Section 46.11 of the Federal Regulations state that research proposals involving human subjects must satisfy
certain requirements before the IRB can grant approval. You should describe in detail how the following
requirements will be satisfied. Be sure to address each area separately.
a. How will you insure that any risks to subjects are minimized? If there are potential risks, describe
what will be done to minimize these risks. If there are risks, describe why the risks to participants are
reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits.
Risks to subjects are minimal. The survey that will be administered will contain items pertaining to
gender bias. Subjects may feel embarrassment or discomfort while answering this type of question.
To minimize these risks, subjects will be informed that all collected information will be kept
anonymous and confidential.
b. How will you insure that the selection of subjects is equitable? Take into account your purpose(s). Be
sure you address research problems involving vulnerable populations such as children, prisoners,
pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, and economically or educationally disadvantaged
persons. If this is an in-class project describe how you will minimize the possibility that students will
feel coerced.
Subjects will be randomly selected from the National Athletic Trainers' Society membership base.
This study will not use a vulnerable population; all subjects will be Certified Athletic Trainers who
are members of the National Athletic Trainers' Association, and they will be employed in either the
high school or collegiate job settings.
c. How will you obtain informed consent from each participant or the subject’s legally authorized
representative and ensure that all consent forms are appropriately documented? Be sure to attach a
copy of your consent form to the project summary.
Due to minimal risks in participating in this survey research, informed consent will be implied by
voluntarily choosing to complete the provided survey.

63
d. Show that the research plan makes provisions to monitor the data collected to insure the safety of all
subjects. This includes the privacy of subjects’ responses and provisions for maintaining the security
and confidentiality of the data.
Subjects' names will not be included on the survey. Subjects' responses will be collected through the
use of Survey Monkey. All data collected from the survey will be stored in password protected files.
3. Check the appropriate box(es) that describe the subjects you plan to use.

Adult volunteers

Mentally Disabled People

CAL University Students

Economically Disadvantaged People

Other Students

Educationally Disadvantaged People

Prisoners

Fetuses or fetal material

Pregnant Women

Children Under 18

Physically Handicapped People

Neonates

4. Is remuneration involved in your project?
5. Is this project part of a grant?

Yes or

Yes or
No

No. If yes, Explain here.

If yes, provide the following information:

Title of the Grant Proposal
Name of the Funding Agency
Dates of the Project Period
6.

Does your project involve the debriefing of those who participated?

Yes or

No

If Yes, explain the debriefing process here.
7. If your project involves a questionnaire interview, ensure that it meets the requirements of Appendix
Policies and Procedures Manual.

in the

64
California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board
Survey/Interview/Questionnaire Consent Checklist (v021209)
This form MUST accompany all IRB review requests
Does your research involve ONLY a survey, interview or questionnaire?
YES—Complete this form
NO—You MUST complete the “Informed Consent Checklist”—skip the remainder of this form
Does your survey/interview/questionnaire cover letter or explanatory statement include:
(1) Statement about the general nature of the survey and how the data will be used?
(2) Statement as to who the primary researcher is, including name, phone, and email address?
(3) FOR ALL STUDENTS: Is the faculty advisor’s name and contact information provided?
(4) Statement that participation is voluntary?
(5) Statement that participation may be discontinued at any time without penalty and all data
discarded?
(6) Statement that the results are confidential?
(7) Statement that results are anonymous?
(8) Statement as to level of risk anticipated or that minimal risk is anticipated? (NOTE: If more
than minimal risk is anticipated, a full consent form is required—and the Informed Consent
Checklist must be completed)
(9) Statement that returning the survey is an indication of consent to use the data?
(10) Who to contact regarding the project and how to contact this person?
(11) Statement as to where the results will be housed and how maintained? (unless otherwise
approved by the IRB, must be a secure location on University premises)
(12) Is there text equivalent to: “Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective nn/nn/nn and expires mm/mm/mm”? (the
actual dates will be specified in the approval notice from the IRB)?
(13) FOR ELECTRONIC/WEBSITE SURVEYS: Does the text of the cover letter or
explanatory statement appear before any data is requested from the participant?
(14) FOR ELECTONIC/WEBSITE SURVEYS: Can the participant discontinue participation at
any point in the process and all data is immediately discarded?

65
California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Checklist (v021209)
This form MUST accompany all IRB review requests
Does your research involve ONLY a survey, interview, or questionnaire?
YES—DO NOT complete this form. You MUST complete the “Survey/Interview/Questionnaire
Consent Checklist” instead.
NO—Complete the remainder of this form.
1. Introduction (check each)
(1.1) Is there a statement that the study involves research?
(1.2) Is there an explanation of the purpose of the research?
2. Is the participant. (check each)
(2.1) Given an invitation to participate?
(2.2) Told why he/she was selected.
(2.3) Told the expected duration of the participation.
(2.4) Informed that participation is voluntary?
(2.5) Informed that all records are confidential?
(2.6) Told that he/she may withdraw from the research at any time without penalty or loss of
benefits?
(2.7) 18 years of age or older? (if not, see Section #9, Special Considerations below)
3. Procedures (check each).
(3.1) Are the procedures identified and explained?
(3.2) Are the procedures that are being investigated clearly identified?
(3.3) Are treatment conditions identified?
4. Risks and discomforts. (check each)
(4.1) Are foreseeable risks or discomforts identified?
(4.2) Is the likelihood of any risks or discomforts identified?
(4.3) Is there a description of the steps that will be taken to minimize any risks or discomforts?
(4.4) Is there an acknowledgement of potentially unforeseeable risks?
(4.5) Is the participant informed about what treatment or follow up courses of action are
available should there be some physical, emotional, or psychological harm?
(4.6) Is there a description of the benefits, if any, to the participant or to others that may be
reasonably expected from the research and an estimate of the likelihood of these benefits?
(4.7) Is there a disclosure of any appropriate alternative procedures or courses of treatment that
might be advantageous to the participant?
5. Records and documentation. (check each)
(5.1) Is there a statement describing how records will be kept confidential?
(5.2) Is there a statement as to where the records will be kept and that this is a secure location?
(5.3) Is there a statement as to who will have access to the records?

66
6. For research involving more than minimal risk (check each),
(6.1) Is there an explanation and description of any compensation and other medical or
counseling treatments that are available if the participants are injured through participation?
(6.2) Is there a statement where further information can be obtained regarding the treatments?
(6.3) Is there information regarding who to contact in the event of research-related injury?
7. Contacts.(check each)
(7.1) Is the participant given a list of contacts for answers to questions about the research and the
participant’s rights?
(7.2) Is the principal researcher identified with name and phone number and email address?
(7.3) FOR ALL STUDENTS: Is the faculty advisor’s name and contact information provided?
8. General Considerations (check each)
(8.1) Is there a statement indicating that the participant is making a decision whether or not to
participate, and that his/her signature indicates that he/she has decided to participate having read and
discussed the information in the informed consent?
(8.2) Are all technical terms fully explained to the participant?
(8.3) Is the informed consent written at a level that the participant can understand?
(8.4) Is there text equivalent to: “Approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board. This approval is effective nn/nn/nn and expires mm/mm/mm”? (the
actual dates will be specified in the approval notice from the IRB)
9. Specific Considerations (check as appropriate)
(9.1) If the participant is or may become pregnant is there a statement that the particular
treatment or procedure may involve risks, foreseeable or currently unforeseeable, to the participant
or to the embryo or fetus?
(9.2) Is there a statement specifying the circumstances in which the participation may be
terminated by the investigator without the participant’s consent?
(9.3) Are any costs to the participant clearly spelled out?
(9.4) If the participant desires to withdraw from the research, are procedures for orderly
termination spelled out?
(9.5) Is there a statement that the Principal Investigator will inform the participant or any
significant new findings developed during the research that may affect them and influence their
willingness to continue participation?
(9.6) Is the participant is less than 18 years of age? If so, a parent or guardian must sign the
consent form and assent must be obtained from the child
Is the consent form written in such a manner that it is clear that the parent/guardian is giving
permission for their child to participate?
Is a child assent form being used?
Does the assent form (if used) clearly indicate that the child can freely refuse to participate
or discontinue participation at any time without penalty or coercion?
(9.7) Are all consent and assent forms written at a level that the intended participant can
understand? (generally, 8th grade level for adults, age-appropriate for children)

67
California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board
Review Request Checklist (v021209)
This form MUST accompany all IRB review requests.
Unless otherwise specified, ALL items must be present in your review request.
Have you:
(1.0) FOR ALL STUDIES: Completed ALL items on the Review Request Form?
Pay particular attention to:
(1.1) Names and email addresses of all investigators
(1.1.1) FOR ALL STUDENTS: use only your CalU email address)
(1.1.2) FOR ALL STUDENTS: Name and email address of your faculty
research advisor
(1.2) Project dates (must be in the future—no studies will be approved which have already
begun or scheduled to begin before final IRB approval—NO EXCEPTIONS)
(1.3) Answered completely and in detail, the questions in items 2a through 2d?
2a: NOTE: No studies can have zero risk, the lowest risk is “minimal risk”. If
more than minimal risk is involved you MUST:
i. Delineate all anticipated risks in detail;
ii. Explain in detail how these risks will be minimized;
iii. Detail the procedures for dealing with adverse outcomes due to these
risks.
iv. Cite peer reviewed references in support of your explanation.
2b. Complete all items.
2c. Describe informed consent procedures in detail.
2d. NOTE: to maintain security and confidentiality of data, all study records
must be housed in a secure (locked) location ON UNIVERSITY PREMISES. The
actual location (department, office, etc.) must be specified in your explanation and
be listed on any consent forms or cover letters.
(1.4) Checked all appropriate boxes in Section 3? If participants under the age of 18 years
are to be included (regardless of what the study involves) you MUST:
(1.4.1) Obtain informed consent from the parent or guardian—consent forms
must be written so that it is clear that the parent/guardian is giving permission for
their child to participate.
(1.4.2) Document how you will obtain assent from the child—This must be done
in an age-appropriate manner. Regardless of whether the parent/guardian has given
permission, a child is completely free to refuse to participate, so the investigator
must document how the child indicated agreement to participate (“assent”).
(1.5) Included all grant information in section 5?
(1.6) Included ALL signatures?
(2.0) FOR STUDIES INVOLVING MORE THAN JUST SURVEYS, INTERVIEWS, OR
QUESTIONNAIRES:
(2.1) Attached a copy of all consent form(s)?
(2.2) FOR STUDIES INVOLVING INDIVIDUALS LESS THAN 18 YEARS OF AGE:
attached a copy of all assent forms (if such a form is used)?
(2.3) Completed and attached a copy of the Consent Form Checklist? (as appropriate—see
that checklist for instructions)
(3.0) FOR STUDIES INVOLVING ONLY SURVEYS, INTERVIEWS, OR
QUESTIONNAIRES:
(3.1) Attached a copy of the cover letter/information sheet?

68
(3.2) Completed and attached a copy of the Survey/Interview/Questionnaire Consent
Checklist? (see that checklist for instructions)
(3.3) Attached a copy of the actual survey, interview, or questionnaire questions in their
final form?
(4.0) FOR ALL STUDENTS: Has your faculty research advisor:
(4.1) Thoroughly reviewed and approved your study?
(4.2) Thoroughly reviewed and approved your IRB paperwork? including:
(4.2.1) Review request form,
(4.2.2) All consent forms, (if used)
(4.2.3) All assent forms (if used)
(4.2.4) All Survey/Interview/Questionnaire cover letters (if used)
(4.2.5) All checklists
(4.3) IMPORTANT NOTE: Your advisor’s signature on the review request form indicates
that they have thoroughly reviewed your proposal and verified that it meets all IRB and
University requirements.
(5.0) Have you retained a copy of all submitted documentation for your records?

69

70
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Psychology Department LRC, Room 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@cup.edu
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP,Chair

Ms. Gach,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled "
Perceived Gender Bias Among High School and Collegiate Certified
Athletic Trainers” (Proposal #10-037) has been approved by the California
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board as submitted, with
the following stipulations:
(1) The title of the study must be included in the consent form.
(2) The consent form must appear after the survey link has been taken,
rather than in the e-mail. Invite participants with an e-mail, but include the
consent form as the first “page” of the survey.
Once you have made this revision, you may immediately begin data
collection. You do not need to wait for further IRB approval. [At your
earliest convenience, you must forward a copy of the revised consent form
for the Board’s records].

(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)

The effective date of the approval is 01-27-2011 and the expiration date is
01-26-2012. These dates must appear on the consent form .
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
Any modifications of your study or other responses that are necessitated
by any events reported in (2).
To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of 01-262012 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing
review. Please contact instreviewboard@cup.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Robert Skwarecki, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Chair, Institutional Review Board

71

APPENDIX C3
Cover Letter

72

February 17, 2011
Dear Fellow Certified Athletic Trainer:
My name is Amber Gach and I am currently a master’s degree candidate at California
University of Pennsylvania Graduate Athletic Training Education Program. In order to
complete part of my degree requirements, I am requesting your participation in my
research thesis. I am conducting survey research to examine high school and collegiate
certified athletic trainers’ perceptions of gender bias in the workplace. The results of this
study (not including individual information) may be published in medical journals for the
benefit of the medical community.
Certified athletic trainers in the high school and collegiate settings are being asked to
participate in this research; however, your participation is voluntary and you have the
right to choose not to participate or to discontinue participation at any time, causing your
data to be discarded. The California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review
Board has reviewed and approved this project. The approval is effective 1/27/11 and
expires 1/26/12.
The survey, entitled Perceived Gender Bias among High School and Collegiate Certified
Athletic Trainers, consists of 32 questions, which will take about 5 to 10 minutes to
complete. Minimal risk is posed by participating in this study as confidentiality will be
maintained.
All survey responses are anonymous and upon submission, neither you name nor will
your email address be attached to your answers. Informed consent to use the data
collected will be assumed upon return of the survey. Aggregate survey responses will be
housed in a password protected file on the CalU campus, which can only be accessed by
the primary researcher. Upon completion of the study, all individual survey results will
be deleted.
Please take this survey at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding
this project, please feel free to contact the primary researcher, Amber Gach at
GAC0926@CALU.EDU. You can also contact the faculty advisor for this research,
Shelly Fetchen DiCesaro, PhD, ATC, CSCS at DICESARO@CAL.EDU.
Please click the following link to access the survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/genderissues
Thank you in advance for your participation. I greatly appreciate your time and effort.

73

Sincerely,

Amber Gach, ATC
Primary Researcher
California University of Pennsylvania
250 University Ave, California, PA 15419
GAC0926@CALU.EDU

74
REFERENCES
1. Fincher L, Boyle-Walker K, Brown S, et al. Guide to
athletic training services. National Athletic
Trainers’ Association site. 2010. Available at:
http://www.nata.org/sites/default/files/GuideToAthleti
cTrainingServices.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2011.
2. National Athletic Trainers’ Association. Membership
statistics: ethnicity demographics. Available at
http://cf.nata.org/members1/documents/membstats/201103.htm. Accessed April 17, 2011.
3. Shrier DK, Zucker AN, Mercurio AE, Landry LJ, Rich M,
Shrier LA. Generation to generation: discrimination
and harassment experiences of physician mothers and
their physician daughters. J Womens Health.
2007;16(6):883-894.
4. Bucknall V, Pynsent PB. Sex and the orthopaedic
surgeon: a survey of patient, medical student and male
orthopaedic surgeon attitudes towards female
orthopaedic surgeons. Surgeon. 2009;7(2):89-96.
5. Blakemore LC, Hall JM, Biermann JS. Women in surgical
residency training programs. J Bone Joint Surg.
2003;85(12):2477-2480.
6. Pannowitz HK, Glass N, Davis K. Resisting gender bias:
insights from Western Australian middle-level women
nurses. Contemp Nurse. 2009;33(2):103-119.
7. Anthony AS. Gender bias and discrimination in nursing
education: can we change it?. Nurse Educ.
2004;29(3):121-125.
8. Tzeng Y, Chen J, Tu H, Tsai T. Role strain of
different gender nursing students in obstetrics
practice: a comparative study. J Nurs Res.
2009;17(1):1-9.
9. Hardin M, Greer JD. The influence of gender-role
socialization, media use and sports participation on
perceptions of gender-appropriate sports. J Sport
Behav. 2009;32(2):207-226.

75
10.

Hoeber L. Exploring the gaps between meanings and
practices of gender equity in a sport organization.
Gend Work Organ. 2007;14(3):259-280.

11.

Schneider RC, Steir WF, Henry TJ, Wilding GE. Senior
women administrators’ perceptions of factors leading
to discrimination of women in intercollegiate athletic
departments. J Issues Intercoll Athl. 2010;3:16-34.

12.

Burton LJ, Grappendorf H, Henderson A. Perceptions of
gender in athletic administration: utilizing role
congruity to examine (potential) prejudice against
women. J Sport Manage. 2011;25:36-45.

13.

Pfister G. Are the women or the organisations to
blame? Gender hierarchies in Danish sports
organisations. Int J Sport Policy. 2010;2(1):1-23.

14.

Pfister G, Radtke S. Sport, women, and leadership:
results of a project on executives in German sports
organizations. Eur J Sport Sci. 2009;9(4):229-243.

15.

Leberman S, Palmer F. Motherhood, sport leadership,
and domain theory: experiences from New Zealand. J
Sport Manage. 2009;23:305-334.

16.

Perez PS, Hibbler DK, Cleary MA, Eberman LE. Gender
equity in athletic training. Athl Ther Today. 2006;11(
2):66-69.

17.

Goodman A, Mensch JM, Jay M, French KE, Mitchell MF,
Fritz SL. Retention and attrition factors for female
certified athletic trainers in the National Collegiate
Athletic Division I Football Bowl Subdivision setting.
J Athl Train. 2010;45(3):287-298.

18.

Kahanov L, Loebsack AR, Masucci MA, Roberts J.
Perspectives on parenthood and working of female
athletic trainers in the secondary school and
collegiate settings. J Athl Train. 2010;45(5):459-466.

19.

Giacobbi PR. Low burnout and high engagement levels in
athletic trainers: results of a nationwide random
sample. J Athl Train. 2009;44(4):370-377.

76
20.

Wiese-Bjornstal D. Gender in the athletic training
room. Athl Ther Today. 2000;5(5):26-27.

21.

Drummond JL, Hostetter K, Laguna PL, Gillentine A, Del
Rossi G. Self-reported comfort of collegiate athletes
with injury and condition care by same-sex and
opposite-sex athletic trainers. J Athl Train.
2007;42(1):106-112.

22.

O’Connor C, Grappendorf H, Burton L, Harmon SM,
Henderson AC, Peel J. National Collegiate Athletic
Association Division I football players’ perceptions
of women in the athletic training room using a role
congruity framework. J Ath Train. 2010;45(4):386-391.

23.

Laurent TG, Bradney DA. Leadership behaviors of
athletic training leaders compared with leaders in
other fields. J Athl Train. 2007;42(1):120-125.

24.

Risberg G, Johansson E, Hamberg K. A theoretical model
for analysing gender bias in medicine. Int J Equity
Health. 2009;8:1-9.

25.

About the NATA. Available at
http://www.nata.org/aboutNATA. Accessed April 10,
2011.

26.

Perceive. Available at http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/perceive. Accessed April 10,
2011.

77
ABSTRACT
TITLE:

PERCEIVED GENDER BIAS AMONG HIGH SCHOOL AND
COLLEGIATE CERTIFIED ATHLETIC TRAINERS

RESEARCHER:

Amber Gach, ATC

ADVISOR:

Dr. Shelly Fetchen DiCesaro

PURPOSE:

To determine high school and collegiate
certified Athletic Trainers’ perceptions of
gender bias in the workplace.

METHODS:

Certified Athletic Trainers working in the
high school and collegiate settings (N=339)
were surveyed using Surveymonkey.com. The
survey consisted of 24 questions regarding
perceived gender bias of self and perceived
gender bias of others.

FINDINGS:

Female certified Athletic Trainers encounter
more gender bias than male certified
Athletic Trainers. There is no significant
difference in the amount of gender bias
between the high school and collegiate job
settings. Certified Athletic Trainers with
more years of work experience have a lower
perception of gender bias. Certified
Athletic Trainers who perceive more bias of
self also perceive more gender bias of
others.

CONCLUSION:

After review of the results, it is concluded
that female and less experienced certified
Athletic Trainers encounter more gender bias
than male and more experienced certified
Athletic Trainers in the high school and
collegiate work settings.