A Description of Comments Written by Clinical Instructors on the Clinical Performance Instrument

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Tsuda ◽  
Sheryl Low ◽  
Georgeanne Vlad
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Instructors ◽  
Clinical Performance Instrument

scholarly journals Validation of the Revised Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 2006

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Roach ◽  
Jody S. Frost ◽  
Nora J. Francis ◽  
Scott Giles ◽  
Jon T. Nordrum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Physical Therapist ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Final Evaluation ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Evaluation Data ◽  
Physical Therapist Students ◽  
Clinical Performance Instrument

Background Based on changes in core physical therapy documents and problems with the earlier version, the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 1997 was revised to create the PT CPI: Version 2006. Objective The purpose of this study was to validate the PT CPI: Version 2006 for use with physical therapist students as a measure of clinical performance. Design This was a combined cross-sectional and prospective study. Methods A convenience sample of physical therapist students from the United States and Canada participated in this study. The PT CPI: Version 2006 was used to collect CPI item–level data from the clinical instructor about student performance at midterm and final evaluation periods in the clinical internship. Midterm evaluation data were collected from 196 students, and final evaluation data were collected from 171 students. The students who participated in the study had a mean age of 24.8 years (SD=2.3, range=21–41). Sixty-seven percent of the participants were from programs in the United States, and 33% were from Canada. Results The PT CPI: Version 2006 demonstrated good internal consistency, and factor analysis with varimax rotation produced a 3-factor solution explaining 94% of the variance. Construct validity was supported by differences in CPI item scores between students on early compared with final clinical experiences. Validity also was supported by significant score changes from midterm to final evaluations for students on both early and final internships and by fair to moderate correlations between prior clinical experience and remaining course work. Limitations This study did not examine rater reliability. Conclusion The results support the PT CPI: Version 2006 as a valid measure of physical therapist student clinical performance.

scholarly journals Emotional Intelligence as a Predictor for Clinical Performance in Professional Physical Therapy Students

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Intelligence ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Grade Point Averages ◽  
Physical Therapy Students ◽  
Grade Point ◽  
Version 2.0 ◽  
Clinical Performance Instrument ◽  
Future Work ◽  
The Relationship

Background and Purpose. The purpose of the admission process in the graduate physical therapy (PT) program is to evaluate information that can predict an individual’s potential for success in the program. To date there is no reliable way to predict clinical performance of physical therapy students. Emotional intelligence has been shown to predict clinical performance in other medical professions and may be a predictor for clinical performance in PT. Generic abilities of clinical performance are critically important in the PT profession and are evaluated using the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI). This study examined the relationship between clinical performance and emotional intelligence. Subjects. Fifty-six graduate physical therapy students (46 female, 10 male) between the ages of 23 to 38 years (25.7 + 3.6 years) from four Eastern Massachusetts schools participated. Methods. Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) scores (version 4), the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT version 2.0)scores, Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores, pre-requisite grade point averages (GPAs) and demographic information were collected. Results. Total CPI score (R2 = 0.36, p <0.02) and scores on individual items of Professional behavior (R2 = 0.31), Performing Interventions (R2 = 0.35, p < 0.04) and Performing an Examination (R2 = 0.28) were not significantly related to emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence was not significantly related to GRE scores (r =.14, p = 0.31) or pre-requisite school GPA (r = 0.10, p = 0.46). Discussion and Conclusion. Within the limitations of this research, the MSCEIT did not prove to be a successful predictor either by itself or in combination with other variables in predicting CPI performance. Future work with emotional intelligence surveys as predictors of CPI performance should start with examining those who pass the clinical experience part of the PT program compared to those who do not. After understanding the relationship between success and failure on the CPI, an examination of those that score high on the CPI versus those that merely pass could be studied.

Clinical Supervision and the Use of a Three-Tiered Hierarchical Approach to Evaluate Student Clinician Performance

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti Solomon-Rice ◽  
Nancy Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Learning Style ◽  
Clinical Supervision ◽  
Clinical Education ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Clinical Instructors ◽  
Evaluation Tool ◽  
Supervisory Styles ◽  
Qualitative Feedback ◽  
Hierarchical Evaluation

Effective university clinical supervision requires the clinical instructor to modify supervisory style based on the student clinician's skill level, experience, and learning style. In addition, clinical education programs provide clinical instructors with an evaluation tool to assess the supervisee's clinical performance. This article reviews the supervisory process and models for modifying supervisory styles and describes various evaluation tools that can be used to evaluate clinical skills. A clinical evaluation tool is then introduced that emphasizes clinical proficiency rather than type of clinical supervision. The tool incorporates hierarchical expectations when evaluating student clinician practicum knowledge and skills across three levels of student clinicians: beginning, intermediate, and advanced. Information is provided about the content of the three-tiered hierarchical evaluation tool and the process used to assess clinical performance. Qualitative feedback from surveys completed by clinical instructors and student clinicians about the tool is reviewed.

scholarly journals Behaviors That Cause Clinical Instructors to Question the Clinical Competence of Physical Therapist Students

1999 ◽  
Vol 79 (7) ◽  
pp. 653-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen W Hayes ◽  
Gail Huber ◽  
Jean Rogers ◽  
Babette Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Physical Therapist ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Student Behaviors ◽  
Clinical Instructors ◽  
Red Flags ◽  
Cognitive Behaviors ◽  
Inadequate Knowledge ◽  
Effective Delivery ◽  
Therapy Services

Abstract Background and Purpose. Clinical instructors (CIs) observe behavior to determine whether students have the skills assumed necessary for safe and effective delivery of physical therapy services. Studies have examined assumptions about necessary skills, but few studies have identified the types of student behaviors that are “red flags” for CIs. This study examined the student behaviors that negatively affect students' clinical performance, which can alert CIs to inadequate performance. Subjects. Twenty-eight female and 5 male CIs discussed the performance of 23 female and 17 male students who were anonymous. Methods. Using questionnaires and semistructured interviews that were taped and transcribed, CIs described demographics and incidents of unsafe and ineffective physical therapy. After reading the transcripts, investigators identified and classified the behaviors into categories and checked their classification for reliability (κ=.60–.75). Results. Behaviors in 3 categories emerged as red flags for CIs: 1 cognitive category—inadequate knowledge and psychomotor skill (43% of 134 behaviors)—and 2 noncognitive categories—unprofessional behavior (29.1%) and poor communication (27.6%). The CIs noticed and valued noncognitive behaviors but addressed cognitive behaviors more often with students. Students who did not receive feedback about their performance were unlikely to change their behavior. The CIs used cognitive behaviors often as reasons to recommend negative outcomes. Conclusion and Discussion. Clinical instructors need to identify unacceptable cognitive and noncognitive behaviors as early as possible in clinical experiences. Evidence suggests that they should discuss their concerns with students and expect students to change.

scholarly journals The influence of pre-professional curricula on components of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Goldwasser ◽  
Kyle Covington
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Physical Therapist ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Professional Behavior ◽  
Quantitative Review ◽  
Arts And Sciences ◽  
Doctor Of Physical Therapy ◽  
Carnegie Classifications ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Clinical Performance Instrument

Background and Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate any association between pre-enrollment curricula and clinical performance in physical therapy professional schools. Specifically, does the type of undergraduate institution (as defined by Carnegie classification type) influence performance on components of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument? Methods: The study methods include a retrospective quantitative review of student educational records from the Duke Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) classes of 2013 to present. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine significance of the dependent variables. Results: Results indicated that when the Carnegie Classifications were consolidated to five categories, there was only a significant difference in score for one of the 108 possible scales in the CPI (Professional Behavior, Final 3). Students who attended an undergraduate institution with a professional focus (category 5) scored significantly (p=.033) higher on this Professional Behavior scale than did students who attended an undergraduate institution with an arts and sciences focus (category 1). When the Carnegie Classifications were consolidated to four categories, two scales showed significant results (Professional Behavior, Final 3; Accountability, Final 3). Conclusions: The study fails to confirm the hypothesis that the type of undergraduate institution influences performance on components of the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument. There is virtually no difference on clinical performance based on undergraduate institution type.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document