BACKGROUND: Based on changes in core physical therapy documents and problems with the earlier version, the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 1997 was revised to create the PT CPI: Version 2006. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to validate the PT CPI: Version 2006 for use with physical therapist students as a measure of clinical performance. DESIGN: This was a combined cross-sectional and prospective study. METHODS: A convenience sample of physical therapist students from the United States and Canada participated in this study. The PT CPI: Version 2006 was used to collect CPI item-level data from the clinical instructor about student performance at midterm and final evaluation periods in the clinical internship. Midterm evaluation data were collected from 196 students, and final evaluation data were collected from 171 students. The students who participated in the study had a mean age of 24.8 years (SD=2.3, range=21-41). Sixty-seven percent of the participants were from programs in the United States, and 33% were from Canada. RESULTS: The PT CPI: Version 2006 demonstrated good internal consistency, and factor analysis with varimax rotation produced a 3-factor solution explaining 94% of the variance. Construct validity was supported by differences in CPI item scores between students on early compared with final clinical experiences. Validity also was supported by significant score changes from midterm to final evaluations for students on both early and final internships and by fair to moderate correlations between prior clinical experience and remaining course work. LIMITATIONS: This study did not examine rater reliability. CONCLUSION: The results support the PT CPI: Version 2006 as a valid measure of physical therapist student clinical performance.
BACKGROUND: Based on changes in core physical therapy documents and problems with the earlier version, the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI): Version 1997 was revised to create the PT CPI: Version 2006. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to validate the PT CPI: Version 2006 for use with physical therapist students as a measure of clinical performance. DESIGN: This was a combined cross-sectional and prospective study. METHODS: A convenience sample of physical therapist students from the United States and Canada participated in this study. The PT CPI: Version 2006 was used to collect CPI item-level data from the clinical instructor about student performance at midterm and final evaluation periods in the clinical internship. Midterm evaluation data were collected from 196 students, and final evaluation data were collected from 171 students. The students who participated in the study had a mean age of 24.8 years (SD=2.3, range=21-41). Sixty-seven percent of the participants were from programs in the United States, and 33% were from Canada. RESULTS: The PT CPI: Version 2006 demonstrated good internal consistency, and factor analysis with varimax rotation produced a 3-factor solution explaining 94% of the variance. Construct validity was supported by differences in CPI item scores between students on early compared with final clinical experiences. Validity also was supported by significant score changes from midterm to final evaluations for students on both early and final internships and by fair to moderate correlations between prior clinical experience and remaining course work. LIMITATIONS: This study did not examine rater reliability. CONCLUSION: The results support the PT CPI: Version 2006 as a valid measure of physical therapist student clinical performance.
Authors: Charlotte Anderson; Meaghan Cosgrove; Dalyce Lees; Gigi Chan; Barbara E Gibson; Mark Hall; Brenda Mori Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2014 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Michael E Kalu; Sharon Switzer-McIntyre; Martine Quesnel; Catherine Donnelly; Kathleen E Norman Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2019 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Rafael García-Ros; Maria-Arantzazu Ruescas-Nicolau; Natalia Cezón-Serrano; Juan J Carrasco; Sofía Pérez-Alenda; Clara Sastre-Arbona; Constanza San Martín-Valenzuela; Cristina Flor-Rufino; Maria Luz Sánchez-Sánchez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 3.390