scholarly journals Influence of Clinical Instructor Experience on Assessing Doctor of Physical Therapist Student Clinical Performance

2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia P. Rubertone ◽  
Kim Nixon-Cave ◽  
Robert Wellmon
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitch Wolden ◽  
Brent Hill ◽  
Sara Voorhees

Abstract Background In physical therapist education, the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) is the predominant measure of student success. Because the NPTE is a high-stakes examination, predicting NPTE performance is important for physical therapist students and programs. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the relationships between first-attempt NPTE performance and physical therapist applicant variables and physical therapist student variables. The 4 identified physical therapist applicant variables were undergraduate cumulative grade point average (GPA), undergraduate GPA for prerequisite courses, Graduate Record Examination verbal and quantitative subscale scores, and admission scores. The 4 identified physical therapist student variables were first- and third-year physical therapist student GPA, clinical performance scores (first and final clinical experiences), noncognitive student variables, and comprehensive examination scores. Data Sources A systematic search was performed with the databases PubMed and EBSCO (1966–2018). Study Selection Studies included in the review met the following criteria: the physical therapist education program offered an entry-level master’s or doctorate degree, pertinent data were available for each independent variable, the relationship between the independent variable and the NPTE was investigated, the NPTE was a continuous variable, the program was a US entry-level therapist education program, and the study was peer reviewed. Data Extraction Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and quality appraisal using the McMaster Appraisal Tool. Data Synthesis Random-effects meta-analyses using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient as the measure of effect size was used. Limitations Limitations of the review included a lack of homogeneity, high NPTE pass rates, modifications to the McMaster Appraisal Tool, small sample sizes, and publication bias. Conclusions No one physical therapist applicant variable should be used as an independent predictor of first-attempt NPTE performance. For physical therapist students, first- and third-year physical therapist student GPA had a strong relationship with first-attempt NPTE performance; clinical performance had a weak and nonsignificant relationship with first-attempt NPTE performance.


2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 416-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn E. Roach ◽  
Jody S. Frost ◽  
Nora J. Francis ◽  
Scott Giles ◽  
Jon T. Nordrum ◽  
...  

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.


Author(s):  
Ann Wilson

Purpose: This paper describes a self-contained model of integrated clinical experiences (ICEs) that take place during the academic portion of an entry-level physical therapist education program in a campus onsite clinic. Description of Model: Students participate in ICEs for three consecutive semesters. Students provide pro bono physical therapy services to individuals with impairments, functional limitations, or changes in physical function resulting from a variety of health conditions. In addition, students participate in an exercise/wellness program for individuals who wish to improve or maintain their current levels of fitness. The first ICE consists of second-year students observing/assisting third-year students in the onsite clinic with basic patient care skills and participation in an exercise/wellness program. Students in the second and third ICEs provide ongoing one-on-one skilled therapy for individuals with neurological or musculoskeletal diagnoses. Results: Feedback obtained from onsite clinical instructors, core academic faculty, students, and patients receiving care in the onsite clinic through group debriefings, questionnaires, and interviews is used to assess students’ readiness for full-time internships and effectiveness of the ICEs. The feedback reveals that the ICEs are meeting their intended goals. Category ratings in the “red flag” areas of the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) are consistently above expected levels for students completing their first full-time clinical internship. In addition, patients receiving care in the onsite clinic report a high level of satisfaction with the care provided. Conclusion/Possible Recommendations: This model provides students with an opportunity to gain clinical confidence in a realistic setting while reinforcing concepts presented in academic coursework. Providing ICEs on campus decreases reliance on clinical facilities and allows for academic program oversight of the quality of the learning experiences and early identification of students who have deficits in clinical skills and/or academic knowledge. The learning experiences provided in the onsite clinic give students a transitional experience that helps them benefit more fully from full-time internships. A potential challenge to this model is finding the space and financial resources needed to make it viable.


2018 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean F Timmerberg ◽  
Robin Dole ◽  
Nicki Silberman ◽  
Stephen L Goffar ◽  
Divya Mathur ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jamie Bayliss

Rationale: A variety of clinical education (CE) exist. Models emphasizing full-time clinical experiences (FTCE) have higher number of full-time hours (high-hours) with less prior didactic preparation and integration with the curriculum. Models including integrated clinical experiences (ICE), part-time ICE (PTICE), and in-class patient experiences (IcPE) integrate experiences with didactic content but include a lower number of full-time hours (low-hours). The purpose of this study is to determine if a re-designed CE curricular model that emphasized IcPEs and ICE with low-hours better prepares students than a version that emphasized FTCEs with high-hours as measured by scores on the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI). Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a data set of 183 Doctor of Physical Therapy students who participated in an initial and final terminal CE experience. Data included student pre-admission data, demographics, and evaluation type, period, and rating for all 18 CPI criteria for the initial and final terminal CE experiences. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between cohorts for the initial terminal CE experience midterm assessment. One CPI factor was significant on the initial terminal CE experience final assessment and the final terminal CE experience midterm assessment (p < .05). Within cohort analysis for all three CPI factors at all assessment periods were statistically significant. Conclusion: All students significantly improved from midterm to final assessment periods of the initial and final terminal CE experiences. Therefore, IcPE, allowing faculty to mentor and provide feedback to students should be considered an alternative to FTCE prior to students’ initial terminal CE experience. MeSH Terms: curriculum, education, students


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document