Introduction

Until now, specific training from national sports federations (NSF) of sports promotion bodies (SPB) and le discipline associate (AD), all of which are sports bodies of the Italian National Olympic Committee (CONI), has been sufficient to be a worker in the field of sport sciences [1]. With the legislative provision of Article 41 of Legislative Decree (L.D.) no. 36 of February 28, 2021, specific training is the responsibility of universities because Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the L.D. stipulates that: "a bachelor's degree in Exercise of the professional activity of the basic kinesiologist is necessary for the possession of a bachelor’s degree in Science in Exercise and Sports Activities (L22) [2]. The first major regulatory intervention is identified in Legislative Decree (L.D.) no. 178 of May 8, 1998, entitled "Transformation of the Higher Institutes of Physical Education (ISEF) and Establishment of the Faculty and Degree Course in Sports Science" [3]. Thus, Institutes of Physical Education (ISEF) are eliminated and, at the same time, degree programs in exercise and sports science and related faculty are established [4]. Article 2, paragraph 2 of the legislative decree states that these degrees are aimed at the acquisition of "adequate knowledge of cultural, scientific and professional methods and content in the following areas": (a) didactic-educational, aimed at teaching in schools of all levels; (b) prevention and adapted physical education, aimed at subjects of different ages and disabled subjects; (c) technical-sport, aimed at training in the various disciplines; and (d) managerial, aimed at the organization and management of sports activities and facilities. For some time, significant legislative proposals have been submitted to regulate professional figures in the sport sciences field. Legislative Proposal no. 1757, submitted on October 3, 2006, and Legislative Proposal no. 2228, submitted on February 7, 2007, aimed to regulate "professional figures of physical activity and sports." The aim was to enhance the figures of sports science graduates to ensure the proper practice of sports activities. Bill no. 2228, on the other hand, forgoes the establishment of registers and merely stipulates the requirement of a bachelor's degree in exercise science to work as a professional in physical and sports activities. The category of exercise science graduates, in the absence of national legislation outlining its traits clearly and unambiguously, has organized itself in associative form in the manner indicated by Law no. 4 of January 14, 2013, dedicated to the so-called unregulated professions [5]. These professionals, therefore, had the choice of either accrediting themselves in the marketplace according to the parameters set by their associations, obtaining the relevant awards, or carrying out their activities regardless of the certifications [6, 7]. Finally, L.D. to 3-year graduates was provided by Legislative Decree 36/2021. In the field of physical activities, there is a common understanding that sports associations and clubs, due to customs prior to the reform, continue to prefer the sport sciences training of CONI, NFS, SPB, AD in preference to university courses [8]. In addition, if the personal trainer carries out his activity in a professional manner, on a regular basis (thus not occasional), and advertised and delivered in a dedicated commercial facility, he requires the opening of a VAT number. Opening a VAT number associates the firm with an ATECO code, or economic activity code, a type of classification adopted by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT) for national economic statistical surveys. It identifies the economic activity group to which it belongs. Specifically, the ATECo codes associated with gymnasium management are 93.13.0 (gyms), 93.19.99 (other sports activities) and 85.51 (sports and recreational courses). Therefore, currently in a great many cases, the role that should be filled by the basic kinesiologist is filled by other professional profiles that have, however, different training [9, 10]. Since the exercise of the professional activity of a basic kinesiologist has as its object: art. paragraph of L.D. "the conduct, management and evaluation of individual and group physical activities of a compensatory, educational, recreational and sports nature aimed at the maintenance and recovery of the best conditions of physical well-being in the various age groups through the promotion of active lifestyles; the conduct, management and evaluation of activities for the improvement of the quality of life through physical exercise, as well as' personal training and non-competitive athletic training". There is an exact realization of the importance and value that this new professional figure has. The study targets students who can also be defined as external stakeholders because in the abstract they are not yet part of those who already do such work who, on the other hand, are definitely internal stakeholders to address the problem of measuring the impact that the new professional figure may have on all stakeholders [11, 12]. Therefore, it is also useful to capture this type of impact alongside that of internal stakeholders to measure knowledge about legislative innovation, perceptions and opinions [13, 14]. The objective of this research is to measure the perceptions and opinions they have regarding the training offered in their education, to analyze any gaps in terms of knowledge and skills to be applied in the professional field.

Methods

Study participants

The participants were 63 external stakeholders who were students in L-22.

Data collection

A questionnaire consisting of 15 questions divided into three parts was administered: part 1 of identifies the sample, part number 2 assesses perceptions on knowledge taught, and part 3 assesses perceptions on skills learned. Table 1 shows in detail the 14 questions with the response options Table 2.

Table 1 Questionnaire administered to the stakeholders
Full size table
Table 2 Chi-square associations
Full size table

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the participants' answers in frequency and percentage (%). As the data obtained were qualitative, a non-parametric test, the Chi Square, was used to identify associations between the various participant responses. The null hypothesis (H0) was that the two variables were independent, i.e., they did not influence each other, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) was that the two variables were associated/dependent. Cramer's V was used to measure the degree of association between the variables. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science software (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0. Armonk, NY).

Results

Of 495 L22 graduates or undergraduates contacted in Campania and Apulia, only 63 gave their willingness to participate in the research. The first part of the questionnaire was intended for sample identification.

From the analysis of the responses, it was possible to identify the sample in terms of age, gender, and origin in terms of university: in terms of age, it varied from 19 to 52 years in this sample, with an average of 22.26 years and a fashion of 20 years (38.1%). In terms of gender, 69.8% are male and 33.3% female; in terms of origin, on the other hand, 52.4% are from the University of Salento and 47.6% from the University of Salerno. Having concluded the identification of the sample, we continue with the second part, which is the perception on the knowledge taught. This is performed through questions number 4 and number 5. Question number 4 'Are you aware of the figure of the kinesiologist?' found as results, 68.3% answered sufficiently, 17.5% answered yes completely, instead negatively only 12.7% with insufficiently and 1.6% with no not at all. In question 5 'Are you aware of the various specializations related to the figure of the kinesiologist?', the result was slightly different, with 60.3% answering sufficiently, 4.8% answered yes completely, instead 27% with insufficiently and 7.9% with no at all. Part 3 assesses the perception on the skills learned. Question 6 Based on your experience as a secondary school student, what kind of idea did you get about the knowledge and skills of the exercise and sports science graduate?' focuses on the subjects' past experience, where 58.7% answered sufficiently positive and 23.8% positive, only 17.5% answered negative. Question 7 'Do you feel that your undergraduate education is in line with the practice of basic kinesiology?' puts the focus on the training offered to the subjects, the answers divided into 60.3% sufficiently and 15.9% yes completely, against only 22.2% insufficiently and 1.6% no not at all. With questions 8 (How much do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to conduct, manage and evaluate individual and group physical activities?), 9 (How much do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to conduct, manage and evaluate activities for improving quality of life through exercise?), 10 (How much do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to perform personal training activities?) and 11 (How much do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to perform non-competitive athletic training activities?) the perception specifically of the skills learned to perform the profession of basic kinesiology is assessed. For question 8, 66.7% answered sufficiently, 17.5% excellently and 15.9% insufficiently. In question 9 61.9% answered sufficiently, 15.9% excellently and 22.2% insufficiently. In contrast, with question 10 the answers are divided, 50.8% sufficiently, 6.6% excellently, 36.1% insufficiently and 6.6% not at all. With question 11, 67.7% sufficiently, 11.3% excellently, 17.7% insufficiently and 3.2% not at all. Questions 12 (How satisfied are you with the disciplines covered in your curriculum?) and 13 (Do you perceive deficiencies related to your undergraduate education?) focus on external stakeholders' perceptions of the education offered. With question 12 it was found that 52.4% were sufficiently satisfied, 14.3% completely satisfied, while 30.2% were insufficiently satisfied and only 3.2% not at all satisfied. Data from question 13 found that 55.7% perceived few gaps, 13.1% no gaps, and 31.1% many gaps. Question 14 (Do you hold a qualification issued by a national sports federation, sports promotion body or other?) found that 74.6% hold no qualification outside the university, 19% have qualifications issued by FSN, 4.8% by other and 1.6% by EPS. Question 15 (Do you think this law protects you from coaches who hold qualifications issued by federations?) found that 52.6% perceive that the new law sufficiently protects the kinesiologist, 7% completely, 31.6% insufficiently, and 8.8% not at all.

Discussion

The study measured the impact of the training of the new professional figure of the L22 graduate on external stakeholders in sports, i.e., individuals who are being trained or are being trained through a university pathway, to clarify whether the proposed knowledge and skills are in line with the practice of the basic kinesiologist, so as to understand whether the latter would complement the organization’s offerings or, conversely, cover functions already routinely performed by other professionals. A questionnaire was used because it is the fastest, cheapest, and most efficient way to collect data in terms of perceptions and opinions, on a good number of subjects. Some interesting data emerged from the results. First, what was found, is that 85.8% of the external stakeholders surveyed, are aware of the professional figure of the basic kinesiologist, defined in the February 28, 2021 Sports Reform Law, as reported. Other important data are derived from question 7 'Do you think your university education is in line with the practice of the profession of basic kinesiologist?' puts the focus on the training offered to the subjects, the answers are divided into 60.3% sufficiently and 15.9% yes completely, against only 22.2% insufficiently and 1.6% no not at all. From the latter, it is understood that the subjects have a good appreciation of the training offered; therefore, they are considered to have learned good knowledge and skills to apply in the professional field. We then went into the details of the skills, with questions 8 (How well do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to conduct, manage and evaluate individual and group physical activities?), 9 (How well do you feel that the training received in the university setting enables you to conduct, manage and evaluate activities to improve quality of life through exercise?), 10 (How much do you feel that the training you received in college allows you to conduct personal training activities?) and 11 (How much do you feel that the training you received in college allows you to conduct non-competitive athletic training activities?). It was found that the subjects have a good perception of the skills learned, the lowest percentage concerns only for personal training activities, nevertheless, 57.4% responded positively. With questions 12 (How satisfied are you with the disciplines covered in your curriculum?) and 13 (Do you perceive any deficiencies related to your undergraduate education?) there is an account of the very high satisfaction estimate. There is a thought-provoking finding, despite the new reform and the good estimation of enjoyment of the training provided by the university pathway, demonstrated with the significances in comparing question 4(Are you aware of the figure of the kinesiologist?) and question 7(Do you feel that your university training is in line with the practice of the basic kinesiology profession?) with P = 0.0001, and between question 5(Are you aware of the various specializations related to the figure of the kinesiologist?) and 8(Do you believe that the training you received in university allows you to conduct, manage and evaluate individual and group physical activities?) with P = 0.001; with question 14 (Do you hold a qualification issued by a national sports federation, sports promotion body or other?) it is found that 74.6% do not hold any qualification outside the university, 19% have qualifications issued by NSF, 4.8% by other and 1.6% by SPB. Although a small percentage of the sample entrusted their training externally to the university, this is probably due to the fact that to work in sports clubs or associations still prefer qualifications issued by NSF, SPB or other.

Conclusions

This study found that external stakeholders have a good estimate of liking the training offered in the university setting. However, it was found that even with the sports job reform, a small percentage prefer behaviors prior to the latter. There is still a preference in the sports field for professional profiles with training other than or outside the basic kinesiologist to fill certain professional roles. Although external stakeholders are satisfied with their own knowledge and skills, feeling ready to fill the professional position of the basic kinesiologist and be placed within sports organizational charts. A limitation of this study is the difficulty of formulating a questionnaire with questions that included the greatest number of items to address the issues identified and achieve the objective of the study. Another limitation is the sample size, which is not representative because it is of convenience. This study can be considered as a starting point for future research, trying to overcome the limitations represented by the questionnaire construction and the limited sample number.