评估物理治疗临床教育现场访问的有效性:临床讲师和学生的观点

Journal, physical therapy education Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-17 DOI:10.1097/JTE.0000000000000288
Michele Shelly Lewis, Melissa Lesser, Eric Folkins
{"title":"评估物理治疗临床教育现场访问的有效性:临床讲师和学生的观点","authors":"Michele Shelly Lewis, Melissa Lesser, Eric Folkins","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review of literature: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>A convenience sample of 104 CIs and 97 doctor of physical therapy students were recruited by email for the 2 surveys.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":"37 1","pages":"202-210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Clinical Education Site Visits: Clinical Instructor and Student Perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Michele Shelly Lewis, Melissa Lesser, Eric Folkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Review of literature: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>A convenience sample of 104 CIs and 97 doctor of physical therapy students were recruited by email for the 2 surveys.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":91351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal, physical therapy education\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"202-210\"},\"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, physical therapy education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000288\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。视频、电话或亲自实地考察用于评估入门级物理治疗教育项目的临床教育。本文采用2个连续的调查来考察学生和临床教师(CIs)对实地考察的看法。第一项包括与亲自和电话实地访问有关的项目。第二个增加了视频通话。本研究的目的是评估CI和学生对实地访问有效性的看法,并探讨面对面访问、视频访问和电话访问之间的差异。文献回顾。已发表的关于实地考察有效性的文献很少。最近的两篇文章探讨了临床教育主任和学生实地考察的观点。建议未来的研究集中在临床医生的观点,实地考察。科目。通过电子邮件的方式抽取方便样本104名ci和97名物理治疗专业的博士生进行两项调查。方法。采用混合方法,三角形,验证,定量数据模型。受访者回答开放式问题,并按李克特5分制对项目进行评分。计算描述性和卡方统计量,并使用定性分析开发主题。结果。学生与高中学生对实地考察方式的偏好无显著差异。ci对所有方法的实地考察的有效性评价相似。在第一次调查中,学生们认为面对面的现场访问是最有效的,在第二次调查中,视频通话是最有效的。定性分析表明,当学生遇到困难时,家长和学生更倾向于亲自拜访。考虑到这两项调查中的封闭式和开放式问题,ci和学生更愿意单独与教师会面。讨论与结论。本研究的结果表明,任何类型的实地考察都是有效的;当学生遇到困难时,应考虑亲自访问,现场访问者应与学生和CI私下会面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Clinical Education Site Visits: Clinical Instructor and Student Perspectives.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Gender Differences in Letters of Recommendation for Physical Therapy Residency Applications. Do We Make a Difference? The Effect of a Doctor of Physical Therapy Program Curriculum on Student Cultural Competence. Student Pedagogical Consultants: A Strategy for Increasing Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, and a Sense of Belonging in Curricular Approaches in Physical Therapist Education. Influencing Physical Therapist's Self-efficacy for Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Through Blended Learning: A Mixed Methods Study. A Continuous Quality Improvement Framework for Sustainable Action and Advancement of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging in Physical Therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1