Shedding Light On The Personal Training Industry - Board Exams, Licensure, and Certifications

I've always had a passion for fitness. I benefited from exercise as an athlete in high school, as a Marine during operations in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti again as a division 1 athlete and today as a disabled veteran and health and fitness consultant. It is a passion that has led to a rewarding career. I have watched the personal training industry rise in popularity since the 80's and now reluctantly see it suffering due to corporate greed and lack of consumer awareness.

In 1998 I began writing articles regarding the explosion of mail-in and fly-by-night certification associations. I worked to formulate a third party verification association whose mission was to verify the credentials of personal trainers based on the combination of their certification, education and experiences. Fundamentally it seemed like a logical and effective solution for our industry. However, I was quickly reminded that money is what drives most people, not principal. It was quickly made clear to me that a third party verification association was not what the industry needed nor what the big certification associations wanted. After all, they would be judged against one another and they did not want that to happen.

Since then, I have been personal training, managing health clubs, directing fitness departments and have started a few other fitness industry related ventures. I have sat back quietly working within the industry to broaden public awareness about personal training, the industry and the issues.

A growing number of fitness professionals now understand the vital need for us to discuss personal training with a bit more depth. Our discussions at the major industry conferences has allowed me to share the guts of this industry, according to my and many others perceptions, with the hopes you will take away some useful information to better serve your facility, trainers, and ultimately members.

Should Personal Trainers Have a National Board Examination?
No! This idea, as presented by the National Board of Fitness Examiners (NBFE), is in theory a great idea. It demonstrates that all personal trainers have a minimum level of knowledge and have passed a unified board examination. Here is where the theory is clashed by reality.

The NBFE does not recognize the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) or the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) as affiliates whose trainers can sit in on their "board exam". This was the first red flag since the ACSM and NSCA have perhaps the most stringent testing requirements of any organizations within the industry. Furthermore, they conduct their own peer reviewed research at the university level on a global scale and make their findings available to all members. Why would the NBFE not grant ACSM and NSCA trainers the opportunity to take their a national board exam?

The second red flag that made me question the intent of the NBFE surfaced as I sat in one of their day long board examination preparation courses. I was shocked to find the content presented was almost identical to that on the existing leading organizations certification exams. Why would the NBFE want to replicate the content a trainer is already expected to know?

The third red flag surfaced when I realized the founder and several of the board members are also the founders and board members of several of the certification associations whose testing and examination practices lacked the primary elements needed to ensure the integrity of their trainers knowledge. Most important of these measures is that the person taking the exam be proctored and secondly that there be a practical component to the exam to ensure the trainers can demonstrate proper form and training technique. Why would someone create an organization whose purpose was to ensure trainers took the types of exams that they themselves do not administer?

The fourth red flag was the realization that many of the affiliate organizations of the NBFE had not obtained accreditation through the National Organization for Competency Assurance (NOCA) whose mission is to "ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of certification programs and organizations that assess professional competency." Why wouldn't the NBFE affiliates just obtain NOCA accreditation to ensure their standards are up to par with the leading organizations?

Making sure all trainers have the same basic level of knowledge and ability is vital to the success and credibility of our industry. However, several organizations are already successfully doing this. What the NBFE is doing is not necessary since it only duplicates what already exists and will end up costing trainers an additional $300-$500. Trainers already spend enough money maintaining their certification and could better spend their hard earned money attending continuing education seminars that enhance their knowledge rather than duplicating information.

More importantly, the NBFE has also cautiously posed the argument in support of obtaining board certification in order to enable trainers to receive insurance reimbursement. If this is their goal than the proposed national board would only serve to propel the personal training industry into the hands of the seemingly inefficient insurance arena which is currently handling its own crisis as hospitals close and doctors leave the medical industry due to less than stellar reimbursement policies and practices.

Looking back at the last two decades in this industry, one thing is certain. Personal trainer certification associations are here to stay. They all have their value and each focuses on a different and important component that will serve to make the trainer more valuable to his/her client, gym, club or studio.

What our industry should do is insist that all associations obtain accreditation through NOCA. This will set a minimum standard while also respecting the individual niches of each certification association. We don't need to recreate the wheel; we need to more effectively use the one we have.