Journal, physical therapy education最新文献

Introduction: Hispanic/Latino students often underachieve in higher education programs in the health professions and have shown lower first-time pass rates on the National Physical Therapy Examination than their White peers. A plausible explanation for this difference is the lack of English proficiency. The purpose of this study was to determine predictive academic variables for passing licensure examination on the first attempt for Hispanic/Latino Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students.

Review of the literature: Numerous studies have been conducted to determine the factors that predict success on the National Physical Therapy Examination; however, there is a scarcity of literature on the predictors of success for Hispanic/Latino DPT students, particularly on the influence of English proficiency.

Subjects: A nonprobability convenience sample of 67 Hispanic students from a single DPT program was used.

Methods: A retrospective, predictive, correlational study was conducted. Data collection was performed by secondary analysis of student academic profiles. Predictor variables included proficiency in the English language; undergraduate grade point average; verbal, quantitative, and written skills; and first-year and third-year grade point average while enrolled in the physical therapist education program.

Results: The first-time pass rate was 59.7% (n = 40). Results showed that students who passed and those who did not pass on their first attempt differed in first-year and third-year program grade point average with large effect sizes of d = 1.13 and d = 1.48, respectively; however, third-year grade point average was the only significant independent predictor of success. English proficiency and preadmission variables did not predict first-time success.

Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest first-year and third-year grade point average may be used to identify at-risk students. Use of these variables is encouraged to monitor the progression of students. The study highlighted the need to identify additional predictors of performance.

Introduction: Video, phone, or in-person site visits are used to assess clinical education in entry-level physical therapy education programs. The perspectives of students and clinical instructors (CIs) related to site visits were examined in this article using 2 consecutive surveys. The first included items related to in-person and phone call site visits. The second added video calls. The research purpose was to assess the CI and student perspectives on the effectiveness of site visits and explore the differences between in-person, video, and phone visits.

Review of literature: Published literature about the effectiveness of site visits is scarce. Two recent articles explored the director of clinical education and student perspectives of site visits. Future research concentrating on the clinician perspective of site visits was recommended.

Subjects: A convenience sample of 104 CIs and 97 doctor of physical therapy students were recruited by email for the 2 surveys.

Methods: A mixed-methods, triangular, validating, quantitative data model was used. Respondents answered open-ended questions and rated items on 5-point Likert scales. Descriptive and chi-square statistics were calculated, and themes were developed using qualitative analysis.

Results: No significant difference was found in preference of site visit method between students and CIs. CIs rated the effectiveness of site visits similarly for all methods. Students rated in-person site visits as the most effective in the first survey and video calls as the most effective in the second survey. Qualitative analysis showed that CIs and students preferred in-person visits when the student was struggling. Considering closed-ended and open-ended questions on both surveys, CIs and students would rather meet individually with the faculty member.

Discussion and conclusion: The results of this study suggest that any type of site visit can be effective; in-person visits should be considered when students are struggling, and the site visitor should meet privately with the student and CI.

Introduction: Restrictions on in-person gatherings during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic required educational programs to explore alternative educational formats. The nature of physical therapy education as a blend of cognitive and psychomotor skill presents additional challenges. During a gradual return to in-person learning, the authors' institution chose to break a full-length 15-week semester into 3, 5-week blocks. The first aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of semester design on course performance. The second aim was to assess the effects of semester design on knowledge and skill retention.

Review of literature: In undergraduate studies, blocked courses or semesters held over a short period of time may result in equal or better performance compared with courses performed over a longer time. Few studies have been performed on the graduate student population. Most studies have focused on short-term cognitive knowledge acquisition.

Subjects: Three cohorts of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students were eligible to participate.

Methods: Two DPT courses (1 first year and 1 second year) were selected to assess cognitive and psychomotor performance. Examination results were compared at the end of a full-length semester and blocked semester. A third course was selected to assess retention at 4 time points. Students were assessed on their cognitive retention using computer-based quizzes and psychomotor retention using in-person skills quizzes.

Results: Median cognitive performance scores for both courses were slightly better during the blocked semester. There were no significant differences in median psychomotor scores. There was no significant interaction effect between semester structure and retention of cognitive knowledge or psychomotor skills, although there were significant changes in scores over time.

Discussion and conclusion: A blocked semester design may favor immediate cognitive performance. However, there is no significant effect on knowledge or skill retention over a 6-month period. Programs faced with the potential for in-person closures can select either semester structure based on their needs without compromising knowledge or skill retention.