{"title":"Student Self-assessment: Reflecting on Physician Assistant Educator's Perceptions and Current Practices in Physician Assistant Training.","authors":"Rachel Ditoro, Joshua Bernstein","doi":"10.1097/JPA.0000000000000520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between physician assistant (PA) educators' perspectives on students' self-assessment (SA) accuracy and students' use of SA education practices and types of abilities assessed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using correlation analysis and a novel, online survey, PA educators were asked about their perceptions of students' SA accuracy in relation to SA educational activities and assessed abilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 308 educators responded. Most respondents used at least one type of SA activity, with feedback and practice being the most common types and comparative assessment, the least common type. Most respondents indicated that students self-assess noncognitive abilities more than cognitive abilities, with SA of communication skills occurring most. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used for correlation analysis with a significant, small correlation noted between the frequency of activities and educators' overall perceptions of students' SA accuracy (r = 0.15, P = .02) and SA accuracy of cognitive abilities (r = 0.17, P = .02). Educators' perceptions of students' SA accuracy were positively skewed, regardless of student training level (ie, didactic and clinical training phases). A mild predictive relationship exists between overall perception of students' SA accuracy and how frequently educators use SA activities (r = 0.29, P = .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although respondents indicated they used practice and feedback activities, providing instruction on how to self-assess and using comparative evaluations to calibrate SAs will improve accuracy. Further research is needed to understand why educators perceive PA students' SA abilities as more accurate, regardless of training level.</p>","PeriodicalId":39231,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000520","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between physician assistant (PA) educators' perspectives on students' self-assessment (SA) accuracy and students' use of SA education practices and types of abilities assessed.
Methods: Using correlation analysis and a novel, online survey, PA educators were asked about their perceptions of students' SA accuracy in relation to SA educational activities and assessed abilities.
Results: A total of 308 educators responded. Most respondents used at least one type of SA activity, with feedback and practice being the most common types and comparative assessment, the least common type. Most respondents indicated that students self-assess noncognitive abilities more than cognitive abilities, with SA of communication skills occurring most. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used for correlation analysis with a significant, small correlation noted between the frequency of activities and educators' overall perceptions of students' SA accuracy (r = 0.15, P = .02) and SA accuracy of cognitive abilities (r = 0.17, P = .02). Educators' perceptions of students' SA accuracy were positively skewed, regardless of student training level (ie, didactic and clinical training phases). A mild predictive relationship exists between overall perception of students' SA accuracy and how frequently educators use SA activities (r = 0.29, P = .05).
Conclusion: Although respondents indicated they used practice and feedback activities, providing instruction on how to self-assess and using comparative evaluations to calibrate SAs will improve accuracy. Further research is needed to understand why educators perceive PA students' SA abilities as more accurate, regardless of training level.