Performance-based assessment during clinical placement: Cross-sectional investigation of a training workshop for practice educators.

Performance-based assessment evaluates a health professional student's performance as they integrate their knowledge and skills into clinical practice. Performance-based assessment grades, however, are reported to be highly variable due to the complexity of decision-making in the clinical environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a training workshop based on frame-of-reference principles on grading of student performance by physiotherapy practice educators. This was a prospective cross-sectional study which used a single group pre-test, post-test design. Fifty-three practice educators rated two video vignettes depicting a poor and very good student performance, using a subsection of a physiotherapy performance-based assessment tool before and after training. Overall, results showed that participants amended their scores on approximately half of all scoring occasions following training, with the majority decreasing the scores awarded. This impacted positively on scoring for the poor performance video, bringing scores more in line with the true score. This study provides evidence of the benefit of a training workshop to influence decision-making in performance-based assessment as part of a wider education program for practice educators.

Supervision models in physiotherapy practice education: student and practice educator evaluations.

Objectives: To establish the supervision models used during physiotherapy practice placements and to determine student and practice educators' evaluations of the quality of these placements.Design: Cross-sectional study set in clinical sites providing placements for physiotherapy students in Ireland.Participants: Practice educators and students completing placements in 2015/16.Outcome Measure: Questionnaire which measured 18 indicators linked to quality assured placements. Eight additional indicators in the practice educator questionnaire addressed the overall feasibility of the supervision model. Two open-ended questions captured comments on the benefits and challenges of each model.Results: The overall response rate was 72% (112/155). The majority (75%, n = 84) of participants reported a 1:1 (one student: one educator) model of supervision. Fourteen percent (n = 16) reported a 1.2 (one student: two educators) model and 9% (n = 10) a 2.1 (two students: one educator) model. There was generally positive agreement with the questionnaire indicating that all placements, irrespective of supervision model were positively evaluated by participants. Students, however, indicated a more negative evaluation of the placement than practice educators in indictors related to communication, the provision of feedback, establishing an effective relationship with their educator and diversity of available learning opportunities. Indicators relating to productivity and the placement representing an efficient use of resources and personnel received more negative or equivocal ratings by educators.Conclusions: While the 1.1 model remains the most widely used supervision model in physiotherapy practice education, other models also score positively, offering choice to placement providers when determining the model that best suits their service.

Evaluation of a 2 to 1 peer placement supervision model by physiotherapy students and their educators.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate student and practice educator evaluations of practice placements using a structured 2 to 1 supervision and implementation model. DESIGN: Cross-sectional pilot study set in clinical sites providing placements for physiotherapy students in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Students and practice educators completing a 2.1 peer placement between 2013 and 2015 participated. OUTCOME MEASURE: A self-reported questionnaire which measured indicators linked to quality assured placements was used. Three open-ended questions captured comments on the benefits and challenges associated with the 2 to 1 model. RESULTS: Ten students (10/20; 50% response rate) and 10 practice educators (10/10; 100% response rate) responded to the questionnaire. Student responses included four pairs of students and one student from a further two pairs. There was generally positive agreement with the questionnaire indicating that placements using the 2 to 1 model were positively evaluated by participants. There were no significant differences between students and practice educators. The main benefits of the 2 to 1 model were shared learning experiences, a peer supported environment, and the development of peer evaluation and feedback skills by students. A key component of the model was the peer scripting process which provided time for reflection, self-evaluation, and peer review. CONCLUSIONS: 2 to 1 placements were positively evaluated by students and educators when supported by a structured supervision model. Clear guidance to students on the provision of peer feedback and support for educators providing feedback to two different students is recommended.