衡量不同文化背景的理疗学生的道德判断:一个困境

Hélène M. Larin PT PhD, E. Lynne Geddes PT, MRE, Kevin W. Eva PhD
{"title":"衡量不同文化背景的理疗学生的道德判断:一个困境","authors":"Hélène M. Larin PT PhD,&nbsp;E. Lynne Geddes PT, MRE,&nbsp;Kevin W. Eva PhD","doi":"10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this cross-cultural study was to compare the level of moral judgement between two groups of students over the period of their professional physical therapy educational programmes as measured by the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Students from two entry-level physical therapy programmes volunteered to participate. The DIT was completed at entry and exit of their respective programmes. DIT mean scores were compared using <span>ancova</span> controlling for age and grade point average. Thirty-eight female, second baccalaureate degree students of diverse religious backgrounds, living in a Western culture and 13 female, first baccalaureate degree students of Islamic religious backgrounds living in an Arabic culture participated. At both entry and exit of their programmes, students from the Western group scored significantly higher on the DIT than the Arabic group (average: 51.1 and 29.9 respectively, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). An initial score difference was anticipated given the different levels of education between the groups. Over the period of their studies, the DIT scores of the Western group increased significantly while the scores of the Arabic group remained constant. The DIT appears to not measure moral judgement uniformly across cultures. The moral dilemmas are based in Western values and offer limited insight into Arabic, Muslim moral judgement. With increasingly diverse student populations, physical therapy programmes may need to re-examine the nature of moral judgement and adapt their curricula.</p>","PeriodicalId":100874,"journal":{"name":"Learning in Health and Social Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring moral judgement in physical therapy students from different cultures: a dilemma\",\"authors\":\"Hélène M. Larin PT PhD,&nbsp;E. Lynne Geddes PT, MRE,&nbsp;Kevin W. Eva PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The purpose of this cross-cultural study was to compare the level of moral judgement between two groups of students over the period of their professional physical therapy educational programmes as measured by the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Students from two entry-level physical therapy programmes volunteered to participate. The DIT was completed at entry and exit of their respective programmes. DIT mean scores were compared using <span>ancova</span> controlling for age and grade point average. Thirty-eight female, second baccalaureate degree students of diverse religious backgrounds, living in a Western culture and 13 female, first baccalaureate degree students of Islamic religious backgrounds living in an Arabic culture participated. At both entry and exit of their programmes, students from the Western group scored significantly higher on the DIT than the Arabic group (average: 51.1 and 29.9 respectively, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). An initial score difference was anticipated given the different levels of education between the groups. Over the period of their studies, the DIT scores of the Western group increased significantly while the scores of the Arabic group remained constant. The DIT appears to not measure moral judgement uniformly across cultures. The moral dilemmas are based in Western values and offer limited insight into Arabic, Muslim moral judgement. With increasingly diverse student populations, physical therapy programmes may need to re-examine the nature of moral judgement and adapt their curricula.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning in Health and Social Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning in Health and Social Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning in Health and Social Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1473-6861.2009.00225.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

这项跨文化研究的目的是比较两组学生在他们的专业物理治疗教育项目期间的道德判断水平,这些水平是通过定义问题测试(DIT)来衡量的。来自两个初级物理治疗课程的学生自愿参加。在他们各自的课程开始和结束时完成了DIT。DIT平均得分比较使用ancova控制年龄和平均绩点。38名不同宗教背景的女性第二学士学位学生生活在西方文化中,13名女性第一学士学位学生生活在阿拉伯文化中,伊斯兰宗教背景。在课程开始和结束时,西方组学生的DIT得分明显高于阿拉伯组(平均:分别为51.1分和29.9分)。0.001)。考虑到两组受教育程度的不同,最初的分数差异是可以预料到的。在他们的研究期间,西方组的DIT分数显著增加,而阿拉伯组的分数保持不变。DIT似乎并没有统一地衡量不同文化的道德判断。道德困境是建立在西方价值观的基础上的,对阿拉伯穆斯林的道德判断提供了有限的洞察力。随着学生群体的日益多样化,物理治疗项目可能需要重新审视道德判断的本质,并调整他们的课程。
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
Measuring moral judgement in physical therapy students from different cultures: a dilemma

The purpose of this cross-cultural study was to compare the level of moral judgement between two groups of students over the period of their professional physical therapy educational programmes as measured by the Defining Issues Test (DIT). Students from two entry-level physical therapy programmes volunteered to participate. The DIT was completed at entry and exit of their respective programmes. DIT mean scores were compared using ancova controlling for age and grade point average. Thirty-eight female, second baccalaureate degree students of diverse religious backgrounds, living in a Western culture and 13 female, first baccalaureate degree students of Islamic religious backgrounds living in an Arabic culture participated. At both entry and exit of their programmes, students from the Western group scored significantly higher on the DIT than the Arabic group (average: 51.1 and 29.9 respectively, P < 0.001). An initial score difference was anticipated given the different levels of education between the groups. Over the period of their studies, the DIT scores of the Western group increased significantly while the scores of the Arabic group remained constant. The DIT appears to not measure moral judgement uniformly across cultures. The moral dilemmas are based in Western values and offer limited insight into Arabic, Muslim moral judgement. With increasingly diverse student populations, physical therapy programmes may need to re-examine the nature of moral judgement and adapt their curricula.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Experiential placements and scaffolding for reflection A qualitative evaluation of an interprofessional learning project Becoming a lecturer in nurse education: the work-place learning of clinical experts as newcomers Lost in translation: barriers to learning in health professional clinical education Undergraduate socialization in medical education: ideals of professional physicians’ practice
×
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