R J Laudicina1. 1. Department of Medical Allied Health Professions, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To document the use of student retention methods in clinical laboratory scientist (CLS) and clinical laboratory technician (CLT) education programs sponsored by academic institutions. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors of 182 CLS and CLT education programs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Responses to a 52-item, forced-choice s survey of retention methods used and program enrollment data provided by survey respondents. RESULTS: All programs are using retention methods, although only 36% of the programs have official retention programs for all students, while 14% have programs targeting minorities. A wide variety of retention methods are used, maintenance-phase activities being used with the greatest frequency. CLS and CLT programs differ in their use of certain retention methods and in some of the phases of the retention process emphasized. CONCLUSION: This study describes the use of a wide variety of retention methods currently employed nationwide. Educators can use the results of this study as a baseline for evaluating their own programs' retention efforts in attempting to address the problem of student attrition.
OBJECTIVE: To document the use of student retention methods in clinical laboratory scientist (CLS) and clinical laboratory technician (CLT) education programs sponsored by academic institutions. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Program directors of 182 CLS and CLT education programs. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Responses to a 52-item, forced-choice s survey of retention methods used and program enrollment data provided by survey respondents. RESULTS: All programs are using retention methods, although only 36% of the programs have official retention programs for all students, while 14% have programs targeting minorities. A wide variety of retention methods are used, maintenance-phase activities being used with the greatest frequency. CLS and CLT programs differ in their use of certain retention methods and in some of the phases of the retention process emphasized. CONCLUSION: This study describes the use of a wide variety of retention methods currently employed nationwide. Educators can use the results of this study as a baseline for evaluating their own programs' retention efforts in attempting to address the problem of student attrition.