Development of a Novel Evidence-Based Practice-Specific Competency for Doctor of Physical Therapy Students in Clinical Education: A Modified Delphi Approach.

Journal, physical therapy education Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1097/JTE.0000000000000350
Douglas Haladay, Zoe Morris, Julie Tilson, Caitlin Fitzgerald, Donna Applebaum, Cindy Flom-Meland, Deborah DeWaay, Tara Jo Manal, Tamara Gravano, Stephanie Anderson, Rebecca Miro, David Russ, Aimee Klein
{"title":"Development of a Novel Evidence-Based Practice-Specific Competency for Doctor of Physical Therapy Students in Clinical Education: A Modified Delphi Approach.","authors":"Douglas Haladay, Zoe Morris, Julie Tilson, Caitlin Fitzgerald, Donna Applebaum, Cindy Flom-Meland, Deborah DeWaay, Tara Jo Manal, Tamara Gravano, Stephanie Anderson, Rebecca Miro, David Russ, Aimee Klein","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Evidence-based practice (EBP) results in high-quality care and decreases unwarranted variation in practice.</p><p><strong>Review of the literature: </strong>Few performance criteria related to EBP are included in physical therapy clinical education (CE) performance measures, despite EBP requirements in Doctor of Physical Therapy education. The purpose of this study was to develop EBP-specific competencies that may be used for Doctor of Physical Therapy students for use throughout CE.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>Thirteen subject matter experts (SME) participated in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Subject matter experts were asked to rank each core EBP competency, from a previously described framework, using a 3-point Likert scale, which included \"Not Essential,\" \"Essential,\" and \"Not Sure.\" A consensus of 70% or greater for the \"Essential\" rating advanced the competency to the final Delphi round, whereas a consensus of 70% or greater for the \"Not Essential\" rating was required for competency elimination. Subject matter experts voted to either \"Accept\" or \"Modify\" the competencies that had reached the inclusion consensus threshold. All competencies that reached consensus for inclusion after all 3 rounds were included in the final EBP Domain of Competence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Consensus was achieved in round one for 38% ( n = 26) of items. In round 2, a consensus was achieved for 20% ( n = 8) of items. Of the items remaining after rounds 1 and 2, 6 overarching competencies were identified, and all remaining items served as descriptions and specifications in the final EBP Domain of Competence.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>The 6 competencies developed from this study constitute the EBP Domain of Competence and may be used throughout CE to assess students' EBP competency in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":517432,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":" ","pages":"71-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000350","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence-based practice (EBP) results in high-quality care and decreases unwarranted variation in practice.

Review of the literature: Few performance criteria related to EBP are included in physical therapy clinical education (CE) performance measures, despite EBP requirements in Doctor of Physical Therapy education. The purpose of this study was to develop EBP-specific competencies that may be used for Doctor of Physical Therapy students for use throughout CE.

Subjects: Thirteen subject matter experts (SME) participated in this study.

Methods: Subject matter experts were asked to rank each core EBP competency, from a previously described framework, using a 3-point Likert scale, which included "Not Essential," "Essential," and "Not Sure." A consensus of 70% or greater for the "Essential" rating advanced the competency to the final Delphi round, whereas a consensus of 70% or greater for the "Not Essential" rating was required for competency elimination. Subject matter experts voted to either "Accept" or "Modify" the competencies that had reached the inclusion consensus threshold. All competencies that reached consensus for inclusion after all 3 rounds were included in the final EBP Domain of Competence.

Results: Consensus was achieved in round one for 38% ( n = 26) of items. In round 2, a consensus was achieved for 20% ( n = 8) of items. Of the items remaining after rounds 1 and 2, 6 overarching competencies were identified, and all remaining items served as descriptions and specifications in the final EBP Domain of Competence.

Discussion and conclusions: The 6 competencies developed from this study constitute the EBP Domain of Competence and may be used throughout CE to assess students' EBP competency in clinical practice.

在临床教育中为理疗学博士生开发新的循证实践能力:改良德尔菲法
导言:循证实践(EBP)可带来高质量的医疗服务,并减少实践中不必要的差异:文献综述:尽管物理治疗学博士教育对循证实践有要求,但在物理治疗学临床教育(CE)绩效衡量标准中却很少包含与循证实践相关的绩效标准。本研究的目的是开发针对物理治疗博士生的 EBP 能力,供整个 CE 使用:13 位主题专家(SME)参与了本研究:根据之前描述的框架,要求主题专家使用 3 点李克特量表对 EBP 核心能力进行排序,包括 "非必要"、"必要 "和 "不确定"。如果对 "必要 "评级的共识率达到或超过 70%,则该能力将进入最后一轮德尔菲讨论;如果对 "非必要 "评级的共识率达到或超过 70%,则该能力将被淘汰。主题专家投票决定 "接受 "或 "修改 "达到纳入共识阈值的能力。所有经过三轮投票达成共识的能力都被纳入最终的 EBP 能力领域:在第一轮中,38%(n = 26)的项目达成了共识。在第二轮中,20%(n = 8)的项目达成了共识。在第一轮和第二轮之后的剩余项目中,确定了 6 项总体能力,所有剩余项目均作为最终 EBP 能力领域的描述和说明:本研究开发的 6 项能力构成了 EBP 能力领域,可用于整个 CE 评估学生在临床实践中的 EBP 能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信