Self-Reported Characteristics of
Physical Therapy Clinical Instructors: A Comparison to the American Physical
Therapy Association's Guidelines and
Self-Assessments for Clinical Education
Authors:
Kathleen M. Buccieri, PT, MS, PCS
Kathleen Schultze, PT, MS, CHT
Jill Dungey, PT, MS, GCS
Theresa A. Kolodziej, PT, DPT, MS
Shauna Malta, PT, MS
Samantha Marooco, PT, MS. GCS
Janice Michaels PT, DPT
Renee Stolove, PT, MA, MPH
Abstract:
Background and Purpose: The purpose of the study was to determine, by
self-report, the professional development and educational activities engaged
in by physical therapists (PTs) who choose to be clinical instructors (CIs)
in physical therapist education programs. The research sought to describe
the characteristics of CIs, correlate the characteristics to selected
guidelines for CIs from the American Physical therapy Association's
Guidelines and Self-Assessments for Clinical Education, and determine
relationships between characteristics of CIs and self-report of
effectiveness and competence as supervisors of physical therapists students.
Subjects: The investigators, participating academic members of the
New York New Jersey Physical Therapy Clinical Education Consortium, randomly
selected 349 clinical sites affiliated with the physical therapist education
programs. From this sample of convenience, all CIs indentified on the
Clinical Site Information Forms of selected clinical affiliates were
selected as subjects.
Methods: Investigators-designed questionnaires tested for content and
face validity were mailed to 1,812 CIs listed on the Clinical Site
Information Forms by the Center Coordinators of Clinical Education at the
349 selected sites.
Results: Of the total surveys mailed, 621 surveys were returned, for
a response rate of 33%. CIs were primarily female, had obtained professional
(entry-level) Bachelor of Science or Master of Science degrees, had been
practicing physical therapy for 2 or more years, has participated in
continuing education courses, and had supervised between 1-4 students per
year. CIs reported that they were effectively prepared to be CIs and felt
competent in this role. Positive relationships existed between self-report
of effectiveness and the respondent's age, years in physical therapy
practice, years as a CI, total number of students supervised, credentialing
as a CI, and the use of the Guide to Physical Therapy Practice.
Discussion and Conclusions: The outcomes of this study could
provide information to academic and clinical communities for program
development and training activities to enhance PT clinical education.
The Consortium is very proud of our members who have recently published an article in the Spring issue (2004) of The Journal of Physical Therapy Education. Please review the abstract below.
Article Title:
Clinical Performance Expectations: A Preliminary Study Comparing Physical Therapy Students, Clinical Instructors and Academic Faculty
Authors:
Martha Macht Sliwinski PT, PhD - Hunter College
Kathleen Schultze PT MS, CHT - The Sage Colleges
Ruth Lyons Hansen PT, MS, CCS - Mercy College
Shauna Malta PT, MS - Utica College
Suzanne R. Babyar, PT, PhD - Hunter College
Abstract:
Background and Purpose: The Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) was developed by the American Physical Therapy Association in 1997 to evaluate physical therapy (PT) student’s performance during clinical education. The purpose of this study was to determine differences in expectations of academic PT faculty, clinical PT faculty and PT students regarding CPI performance ratings at the conclusion of the first full-time clinical education experience.
Subjects: Academic Coordinators of Clinical Education from nine PT education programs who were members of the New York/New Jersey PT Clinical Education Consortium (CEC) participated in the study 197 Students and 28 academic faculty (AF) from each of these programs responded. Clinical Instructors (CIs) were mailed surveys using the CEC mailing list with a response rate of 18%.
Methods: Respondents used a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) to indicate the expected final scores for students on the 24 CPI items. Linear measurements (mm) from the left anchor of the VAS were the dependent measures. One-way analysis of variance used to compare means among students, AF and CIs.
Results: Students, AF and CIs, did not expect entry-level competency on any CPI item. AF and CI demonstrated no significant differences on any of the 24 performance criteria. Twelve items showed no significant differences among the groups. Student expectation levels were significantly higher than the AF and CIs on 12 and 5 items respectively.
Discussion and Conclusions: AF and CIs agree about expected performance of students during their first full-time clinical experience. Students had higher expectations than AF and CIs on several items which may reflect students’ perceptions of confidence in more advanced skills. A larger sample from a wider geographic area is needed in future studies of the CPI.