Feasibility of Use of the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool in Full-Time Clinical Education Experiences: A Multi-institutional Study

Marisa Birkmeier, E. Wheeler, Heidi McGregor Garske, S. Gorman, H. Richards, Melissa Wolff-Burke, Megan R. Bureau
{"title":"Feasibility of Use of the Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool in Full-Time Clinical Education Experiences: A Multi-institutional Study","authors":"Marisa Birkmeier, E. Wheeler, Heidi McGregor Garske, S. Gorman, H. Richards, Melissa Wolff-Burke, Megan R. Bureau","doi":"10.1097/JTE.0000000000000237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction. The Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool (CIET) is a reliable and valid clinical education assessment tool but is used less frequently by physical therapist education programs than the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI). The purposes of this exploratory study were to: 1) explore CI and student perceptions for the CIET as an accurate and user-friendly measurement of physical therapist (PT) student clinical performance; and 2) to compare stakeholder perceptions of CIET as a clinical performance tool to PT CPI. Methods. Clinical instructors and PT students were recruited from 5 geographically diverse physical therapist education programs and completed both the PT CPI and CIET at the midterm and final evaluation during a full-time clinical education experience. A post-survey collected data related to participants' perceptions of tool feasibility and ease of use. The Wilcoxon sign rank test was used to determine whether significant differences existed in the participants’ perceptions related to the utility of the CIET versus PT CPI. Results. One hundred one participants (56 PT students; 45 CIs) completed the study. Most student and CI participants (91.1%) indicated that the CIET completion time was < 45 minutes. More students (66.1%) and CIs (73.3%) reported a PT CPI completion time of > 45 minutes. Students (71.4%) and CIs (68%) preferred the CIET to the CPI. There was a significant difference in perception of ease of use (Z-score = −5.42, P < .001), appropriate completion time (Z-score = −7.25, P < .001), and little redundancy of items (Z-score = −7.17, P < .001). Discussion and Conclusion. Students and CIs preferred the CIET which was perceived to be easy to use and completed in < 45 minutes while still retaining the ability to accurately measure student performance in clinic. Clinical education requires efficient, valid, and reliable assessment tools to match the dynamic needs of a changing health care environment.","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":"36 1","pages":"263 - 271"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","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.0000000000000237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction. The Clinical Internship Evaluation Tool (CIET) is a reliable and valid clinical education assessment tool but is used less frequently by physical therapist education programs than the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT CPI). The purposes of this exploratory study were to: 1) explore CI and student perceptions for the CIET as an accurate and user-friendly measurement of physical therapist (PT) student clinical performance; and 2) to compare stakeholder perceptions of CIET as a clinical performance tool to PT CPI. Methods. Clinical instructors and PT students were recruited from 5 geographically diverse physical therapist education programs and completed both the PT CPI and CIET at the midterm and final evaluation during a full-time clinical education experience. A post-survey collected data related to participants' perceptions of tool feasibility and ease of use. The Wilcoxon sign rank test was used to determine whether significant differences existed in the participants’ perceptions related to the utility of the CIET versus PT CPI. Results. One hundred one participants (56 PT students; 45 CIs) completed the study. Most student and CI participants (91.1%) indicated that the CIET completion time was < 45 minutes. More students (66.1%) and CIs (73.3%) reported a PT CPI completion time of > 45 minutes. Students (71.4%) and CIs (68%) preferred the CIET to the CPI. There was a significant difference in perception of ease of use (Z-score = −5.42, P < .001), appropriate completion time (Z-score = −7.25, P < .001), and little redundancy of items (Z-score = −7.17, P < .001). Discussion and Conclusion. Students and CIs preferred the CIET which was perceived to be easy to use and completed in < 45 minutes while still retaining the ability to accurately measure student performance in clinic. Clinical education requires efficient, valid, and reliable assessment tools to match the dynamic needs of a changing health care environment.
临床实习评估工具在全日制临床教育中应用的可行性研究
补充数字内容可在文本中获得。介绍。临床实习评估工具(CIET)是一种可靠有效的临床教育评估工具,但在物理治疗师教育项目中使用的频率低于物理治疗师临床表现工具(PT CPI)。本探索性研究的目的是:1)探索CI和学生对CIET的感知作为物理治疗师(PT)学生临床表现的准确和用户友好的测量;2)比较利益相关者对CIET作为临床绩效工具与PT CPI的看法。方法。临床教师和PT学生从5个地理位置不同的物理治疗师教育项目中招募,并在全日制临床教育经历中完成PT CPI和CIET期中和期末评估。一项后期调查收集了与参与者对工具可行性和易用性的看法相关的数据。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验来确定参与者对CIET与PT CPI的效用的感知是否存在显著差异。结果。参与者101人(PT学生56人;45名ci)完成了研究。大多数学生和CI参与者(91.1%)表示CIET完成时间< 45分钟。更多的学生(66.1%)和CIs(73.3%)报告了PT CPI完成时间为45分钟。与CPI相比,学生(71.4%)和CIs(68%)更喜欢CIET。在易用性感知(Z-score = - 5.42, P < .001)、适当的完成时间(Z-score = - 7.25, P < .001)和项目冗余少(Z-score = - 7.17, P < .001)方面存在显著差异。讨论与结论。学生和ci更喜欢CIET,因为它易于使用,在45分钟内完成,同时仍然保留了准确衡量学生临床表现的能力。临床教育需要高效、有效和可靠的评估工具,以适应不断变化的卫生保健环境的动态需求。
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
CiteScore
1.80
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