RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Integrated clinical education (ICE) courses require opportunities for practice, assessment of performance, and specific feedback. The purposes of this study were to 1) analyze the internal consistency of a tool for evaluating students during ICE courses, 2) examine the responsiveness of the tool between midterm and final assessments, and 3) develop a model to predict the final score from midterm assessments and explore relationships among the 6 domains. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Several clinical education assessment tools have been developed for terminal clinical experiences, but few have focused on the needs of learners during the ICE. SUBJECTS: Eighty-five student assessments were collected from 2 consecutive cohorts of physical therapist students in a first full-time ICE course. METHODS: The tool contained 29 items within 6 domains. Items were rated on a 5-point scale from dependent to indirect supervision. Cronbach's alpha was used to analyze the internal consistency of the tool, whereas responsiveness was examined with paired t-test and Cohen's d. A best subsets regression model was used to determine the best combination of midterm variables that predicted the final total scores. Coefficients of determination (R2) were calculated to explore the relationships among domains. RESULTS: The tool was found to have high internal consistency at midterm and final assessment (α = 0.97 and 0.98, respectively). Mean scores increased over time for each domain score and for the total score (P < .001; d = 1.5). Scores in 3 midterm domains predicted more than 57% of the variance in the final total score. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Results support the use of this tool to measure student performance and growth in a first full-time ICE course. Targeted measurement of students' abilities in ICE courses assists with differentiating formative and summative learning needed to achieve academic success.
RESUMO
Background: Identifying excellence in physical therapist academic environments is complicated by the lack of nationally available benchmarking data. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare a physical therapist academic environment to another health care profession (medicine) academic environment using the Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire (GQ) survey. Design: The design consisted of longitudinal benchmarking. Methods: Between 2009 and 2017, the GQ was administered to graduates of a physical therapist education program (Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Carver College of Medicine, The University of Iowa [PTRS]). Their ratings of the educational environment were compared to nationwide data for a peer health care profession (medicine) educational environment. Benchmarking to the GQ capitalizes on a large, psychometrically validated database of academic domains that may be broadly applicable to health care education. The GQ captures critical information about the student experience (eg, faculty professionalism, burnout, student mistreatment) that can be used to characterize the educational environment. This study hypothesized that the ratings provided by 9 consecutive cohorts of PTRS students (n = 316) would reveal educational environment differences from academic medical education. Results: PTRS students reported significantly higher ratings of the educational emotional climate and student-faculty interactions than medical students. PTRS and medical students did not differ on ratings of empathy and tolerance for ambiguity. PTRS students reported significantly lower ratings of burnout than medical students. PTRS students descriptively reported observing greater faculty professionalism and experiencing less mistreatment than medical students. Limitations: The generalizability of these findings to other physical therapist education environments has not been established. Conclusions: Selected elements of the GQ survey revealed differences in the educational environments experienced by physical therapist students and medical students. All physical therapist academic programs should adopt a universal method to benchmark the educational environment to understand the student experience.