Cultural Intelligence and Cultural Agility in Practicing Athletic Trainers

Context Cultural intelligence (CQ) and cultural agility (CA) are essential for effective health care. Cultural intelligence is the capacity to effectively navigate and adapt to diverse cultural contexts, while CA involves actively engaging with individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds and integrating cultural distinctions into practice. Objective To measure CQ and CA in practicing athletic trainers (ATs) using self-assessments and open response scenario-based questions. Design Cross-sectional. Setting Web-based survey. Patients or Other Participants The survey was distributed to 3000 ATs through the National Athletic Trainers’ Association Survey Service; 214 people accessed it (7.1%), and 199 participants finished it (93.0% completion rate; age = 39.7 ± 0.4 years, experience = 13.3 ± 9.6 years). Main Outcome Measure(s) Cultural agility was measured with the Cultural Agility Scale and CQ was measured using the Cultural Intelligence Scale (CQS). The Cultural Agility Scale, developed by our team (Content Validity Index scale = 1.0), assessed the 9 attributes of CA through a 14-item scale and 2 open response questions. The CQS measured CQ across 4 dimensions using a 20-item scale. Demographic subgroups were compared using parametric inferential statistics ( P < .05 a priori). Results For CA, men (n = 31) and women (n = 45) scored significantly differently on curiosity (men = 4.0 ± 0.8, women = 4.4 ± 0.6, P = .008, Cohen d = 0.7 [moderate]), adaptation (men = 3.2 ± 0.7, women = 3.7 ± 0.8, P = .002, Cohen d = 0.8 [large]), and minimization (men = 4.0 ± 0.7, women = 3.6 ± 0.8, P = .049, Cohen d = 0.8 [large]). Participants demonstrated about half of the attributes in the scenario responses (scenario 1 = 4.3 ± 1.6; scenario 2 = 4.1 ± 1.5). For CQ, no significant differences were found between gender identities or race on the CQS or its subscales ( P > .05). When excluding groups with <5 respondents, we identified a main effect for educational level on CQS action ( F 4,70 = 3.901, P = .006, η 2 = 0.182), in which those with bachelor’s degrees (n = 6, mean = 5.5 ± 0.9) showed a higher inclination toward action than those with a professional master’s (n = 16, mean = 4.1 ± 0.8; P = .006). Conclusions While ATs show moderate levels of CQ and CA, room for improvement exists for applying these constructs in diverse settings.