Certified Athletic Trainers’ Experiences With and Perceptions of Sport Psychology Services for Student-Athletes Rebecca A. Zakrajsek and Leslee A. Fisher University of Tennessee Scott B. Martin University of North Texas Nine (5 female, 4 male) certified athletic trainers (ATs) from a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I institution participated in semistructured interviews about their experiences with sport psychology services and perceptions on the potential role of sport psychology consultants (SPCs) in student-athlete development. Through consensual qualitative research procedures, 3 domains were constructed: knowledge of availability and understanding of sport psychology services, perceptions of sport psychology services for injury rehabilitation, and use of sport psychology services for sport performance. Interacting professionally with SPCs, working with sport teams that use sport psychology services, and receiving mentorship from senior ATs who have “bought in” to sport psychology were identified as underlying factors that influenced ATs’ knowledge and use of services. Recommendations for how SPCs can nurture collaborative relationships between themselves and ATs are also provided. Keywords: athletic training, interprofessional, mental performance consultants, mental skills training In the United States, the Board of Certifications’ standards of professional practice require certified athletic trainers (ATs) to have obtained knowledge and competency in psychosocial strate- gies (National Athletic Training Association [NATA], 2011). For example, ATs are expected to appropriately select and integrate both basic (i.e., foundational, e.g., goal setting) and specialized (e.g., imagery, self-talk, relaxation) psychological strategies into rehabilitation programs with injured athletes to enhance rehabili- tation adherence and overall treatment outcomes (NATA, 2011). Unfortunately, many ATs continue to report feeling unprepared or less than qualified to meet these expectations (Clement, Granquist, & Arvinen-Barrow, 2013; Stiller-Ostrowski & Ostrowski, 2009). Furthermore, when ATs use psychological skills and strategies with athletes, they appear to be more comfortable teaching basic (e.g., short-term goals, creating variety in rehabilitation, encour- aging effective communication) rather than specialized skills and strategies (e.g., muscle relaxation, mental rehearsal, emotional control; see Clement et al., 2013). Weise, Weiss, and Yukelson (1991), in their landmark study of ATs’ use of sport psychology with injured athletes, concluded that “it is neither necessary nor feasible for athletic trainers to have the knowledge and skill to employ all of these techniques themselves, particularly the more specialized psychological skills such as relaxation and imagery” (p. 22). Current researchers continue to recognize that, given ATs’ numerous responsibilities, it might be unrealistic to expect them to provide athletes with all the physical and psychological services needed during injury rehabili- tation (Clement & Arvinen-Borrow, 2013; Zakrajsek, Fisher, & Martin, 2017). A possible solution might be to integrate a qualified team of professionals who offer specialized mental training ser- vices to athletes for their full recovery and return to sport (Clement & Arvinen-Barrow, 2013). For example, ATs could integrate a competent sport psychology consultant (SPC) to teach athletes psychological skills and strategies for the purpose of enhancing performance and recovery during injury rehabilitation. At least in the United States, integrating sport psychology services with injured athletes does not appear to be the norm, especially in settings where only a small percentage of ATs report having access to an SPC (approximately 20%, n = 215; Clement et al., 2013). However, more recent research indicates that 63.1% (n = 659) of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I (DI) ATs reported having access to an SPC at their institution (Zakrajsek, Martin, & Wrisberg, 2016). Access to an SPC at an NCAA DI institution was significantly associated with an increase in ATs’ reported use of sport psychology services during injury rehabilitation (Zakrajsek et al., 2016). Specifically, of the 472 (71.6%, n = 659) ATs who encouraged student-athletes to use SPCs, 360 (76.27%) reported using on-campus sport psychology services, whereas only 112 (23.73%) of ATs reported using off- campus services. Therefore, the NCAA DI level might be an environment where an interprofessional team approach (e.g., inte- grative cooperation and collaboration between ATs and SPCs, blending complementary competence and skills; Samuelson, Tedeschi, Aarendonk, De La Cuesta, & Groenewegen, 2012) is not only possible but also more likely to occur. However, research is lacking about when and how ATs use an interprofessional team approach with sport psychology services at this level. To that end, we recently undertook a two-part qualitative investigation with NCAA DI ATs at one institution that employs a full-time SPC to try to understand ATs’ efforts in using sport psychology services for rehabilitation and sport-performance pur- poses. In the first part of the investigation, we explored NCAA DI ATs’ perceptions of and experiences with using psychological skills and strategies in their practice with injured student-athletes during rehabilitation (Zakrajsek et al., 2017). Results revealed that, despite completing at least one course in sport psychology and working at an institution where these services were available, NCAA DI ATs reported limited knowledge and understanding of sport psychology and the use of psychological strategies. While Zakrajsek and Fisher are with the Dept. of Kinesiology, Recreation, & Sport Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. Martin is with the Dept. of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX. Zakrajsek at raz@utk.edu) is corresponding author. 300 The Sport Psychologist, 2018, 32, 300-310 https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2017-0119 © 2018 Human Kinetics, Inc. APPLIED RESEARCH