Brenda Mori1, Dina Brooks2, Kathleen E Norman3, Jodi Herold4, Dorcas E Beaton5. 1. Department of Physical Therapy; Centre for Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine. 2. Department of Physical Therapy. 3. Physical Therapy Program, School of Rehabilitation Therapy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. 4. Postgraduate Medical Education. 5. Department of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto; Musculoskeletal Health and Outcomes Research, University of Toronto at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital; Institute for Work and Health, Toronto.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop the first draft of a Canadian tool to assess physiotherapy (PT) students' performance in clinical education (CE). Phase 1: to gain consensus on the items within the new tool, the number and placement of the comment boxes, and the rating scale; Phase 2: to explore the face and content validity of the draft tool. METHODS: Phase 1 used the Delphi method; Phase 2 used cognitive interviewing methods with recent graduates and clinical instructors (CIs) and detailed interviews with clinical education and measurement experts. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the first draft of the new tool by round 3 of the Delphi process, which was completed by 21 participants. Interviews were completed with 13 CIs, 6 recent graduates, and 7 experts. Recent graduates and CIs were able to interpret the tool accurately, felt they could apply it to a recent CE experience, and provided suggestions to improve the draft. Experts provided salient advice. CONCLUSIONS: The first draft of a new tool to assess PT students in CE, the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP), was developed and will undergo further development and testing, including national consultation with stakeholders. Data from Phase 2 will contribute to developing an online education module for CIs and students.
PURPOSE: To develop the first draft of a Canadian tool to assess physiotherapy (PT) students' performance in clinical education (CE). Phase 1: to gain consensus on the items within the new tool, the number and placement of the comment boxes, and the rating scale; Phase 2: to explore the face and content validity of the draft tool. METHODS: Phase 1 used the Delphi method; Phase 2 used cognitive interviewing methods with recent graduates and clinical instructors (CIs) and detailed interviews with clinical education and measurement experts. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on the first draft of the new tool by round 3 of the Delphi process, which was completed by 21 participants. Interviews were completed with 13 CIs, 6 recent graduates, and 7 experts. Recent graduates and CIs were able to interpret the tool accurately, felt they could apply it to a recent CE experience, and provided suggestions to improve the draft. Experts provided salient advice. CONCLUSIONS: The first draft of a new tool to assess PT students in CE, the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP), was developed and will undergo further development and testing, including national consultation with stakeholders. Data from Phase 2 will contribute to developing an online education module for CIs and students.
Entities:
Keywords:
educational measurement; internship and residency; students
Authors: Olivia W So; Rachael Shaw; Liam O'Rourke; Jacob T Woldegabriel; Brittany Wade; Martine Quesnel; Brenda Mori Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2019 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: Michael E Kalu; Sharon Switzer-Mclntrye; Martine Quesnel; Catherine Donnelly; Kathleen E Norman Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2021 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Jacqueline Yeldon; Rose Wilson; Jacqueline Laferrière; Gillian Arseneau; ShanShan Gu BSc; Mark Hall; Kathleen E Norman; Karen Yoshida; Brenda Mori Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2018 Impact factor: 1.037